WMN: t3_3j1eg0_t1_culjvas

[TITLE]

CMV: If you CONCIOUSLY and CONSENTUALLY put something in your body that you KNOW makes you make bad decisions, it's not rape.

[SparkySywer]

If this is a duplicate post, I apologize, an AutoMod told my my old version was too short and that it was removed. Here's my logic, though: If I get drunk and blow off all my money, it's my problem. If I get drunk and crash my car, it's my problem. If I get drunk and get into a fight, it's my problem. If I get drunk and have sex, it's my problem. ----------------------- Of course, though, if you slip something into my drink and have sex with me, that's not my fault, and if you give me a drink and say it's Mountain Dew when it is actually something that knocks me out, it's your fault. So if it wasn't concious and consentual, then it's still rape. And if you were given it under a false idea of what you were ingesting, it's arguably still rape. (But if you say, oh sir I didn't know that alcohol makes you make bad decisions it's not rape) ------------------------------ worknman brought up something I didn't think to address, but I meant if someone says "yes" and has something in their body that they put in themselves that they knew makes them make bad decision, it's not rape. A drunk person *can* give consent if they consentually got drunk. So also, if someone attempts to have sex with them and they say "no" and are too drunk to fight back, it's still rape, because they didn't give consent. --------------------------- I'm probably gonna get lynched for asking this, but it's basic courtesy. Please don't downvote everything I say just because you disagree, please. It's very obviously going to happen, but please, just don't. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[ilovekingbarrett]

this is harder to address because there are people who've asked for some deeper insight into your views that you haven't really answered yet, and that would be what'd help the most. but put simply. if a girl feels like she's been raped, or that something was wrong, then something **bad** happened. you don't feel like that normally after being drunk and having sex. you don't feel like that after "oh, just got with a guy i shouldn't have, oh whatever." or "woops, fucked the weird alt-rock guy from gas station while i was drunk, oh my god, i can't believe i did that." there is no situation where just this, this alone, produces anything close to a feeling of violation or being raped. if it's the case that after being drunk, and having had sex that wasn't completely forced onto her, a girl or a guy feels like they've been raped, then there were extra variables, usualy subtly, sneaky ones that are intentionally hard to kind of pick out, and they were **bad**. it looks like you haven't really understood the people who say they had sex while they were drunk and were raped because they didn't consent. it's not like normal drunk sex. it's more like something described in this article: http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2014/09/i-was-raped-when-i-was-drunk-i-was-14-do-you-believe-me-richard-dawkins a feeling as strong as feeling like you were violated or raped does not come from nowhere. it doesn't materialize out of thin air. it's not caused by normal sex, or bad choices. it's not the same as regretting sex, or feeling a *little* dirty. it's like feeling raped. it's not like guys that a girl would otherwise be neutral to or just fine with or a little "oh he's not that attractive" are having sex with drunk girls in perfectly normal situations while they're sober, and later the girls are feeling raped. it's not guys who have done nothing wrong getting accused of raping girls because they had sex wihle one was sober and the other wasn't. this is obviously a huge simplifcation, just kind of coasting over important details. but i think the main point is pretty clear.

[SparkySywer]

That article there was in a case different to the point I believe, which is that a drunk person *can* give consent. I probably should have explained that in the title, but I didn't, and I apologize. The girl in this article was raped. She wasn't drunk and said "Yeah I'll have sex" without thinking about it, she passed out and someone took advantage of it. And I get that when you have sex when you're drunk you don't fell just a little dirty or regretful. Here's a non-sex example: In 5th grade I punched a kid and beat him up because he cheated in a game we played at recess. I got in big trouble. I regretted it, really, really much so, in ways I'm afraid I might not be able to express, but I owned up to it. I served my punishment and moved on. A drunk person, while they might feel so damn ashamed, dirty, and dehumanized, they should just accept that they didn't drink responsibly, and thus must accept the consequences. Believe me, I took this into account.

[ilovekingbarrett]

if they said "yeah i'll have sex", in a fully consenting situation, no, they won't feel raped. this doesn't happen. you're arguing about something that doesn't exist. i'm not saying that a drunk person who has bad sex feels *just* a little dirty, i was saying that if you had bad sex, you'll *only* feel a *little* dirty. if you were raped, it will feel different, but if you have people putting ideas like the ones in this post into your head, you might never recognize that feeling. if you're arguing that it's possible to have sex with a drunk person and it can be not rape, then uh... join the club. it's called everybody. but you know, there are situations where you can say "yeah, i'll have sex", whether you're drunk or not, and it can be rape. that sounds like complete bullshit, i'm sure. the key to understanding these situations is that, in one way or another, something incredibly fucked up is going on. and it most likely - really, almost certainly - involves a predator. that's where things get fucked up. are you familiar with the behaviour of, for example, abusive, narcissistic parents? take a look at this for a primer: http://www.fortrefuge.com/Emotional-Abuse-Narcissistic-Mothers.html you might notice how consistently, a factor in this abuse is that the abused people have no idea how to make it clear to other people, because they always have some kind of excuse that makes it their fault, just like their abuser does. it's a very warping, manipulative environment to exist in, highly confusing, frequently traumatic. it's not just a characteristic of manipulative, deceitful parents. predators - real, dangerous, pathological liars in many cases - have a consistent knack for this, manipulating and warping things so that things just don't make sense inside a mark's head. can you see the obvious connection from here? there's a reason there's a term "sexual predator".

[hacksoncode]

The problem is that rape has absolutely nothing to do with the responsibilities of the *victim*. It has only and completely to do with the responsibilities of the criminal. This kind of reasoning is exactly the same kind of reasoning that says if someone dresses sluttily, they were "asking for it", and so the "consented" even if they didn't. It really doesn't matter what the victim "should have done" when it comes to deciding whether to punish the criminal. It's entirely about the intent and responsibility of the criminal. Anything else is just blaming the victim. None of your other examples have a *criminal* involved that made a decision to commit a crime. It's entirely about *their* responsibillity, not their victim's.

[Nepene]

Imagine you are a country. There are a number of gambling establishments in your country. On occasion, someone gets very drunk and the gambling establishment gives them loads of drinks and they get more drunk and lose lots of money. Is it the person's fault? Maybe. Are people likely to vote for you if you allow these gambling establishments to ruin people's lives, put voters out on the street? If they keep murdering people by getting them drunk enough to vomit and choke on it are tourists going to visit Probably not. http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/06/nation/la-na-nn-drunk-vegas-gambler-20140306 That's why places like Nevada have laws against that sort of behaviour. Casinos aren't allowed to let visibly drunk patrons gamble, aren't allowed to ply gamblers with alcohol. Regardless of who is to blame, we don't want to allow casinos to ruin people's lives like that. People are obviously stupid when drunk. Now, suppose you are a law maker. A number of women report that someone plied them with drinks, had drunk sex with them, and got HIV positive. A number report that they did that and foolishly agreed to lubeless anal sex and now have incontinence. A number of feminists report that their rape centers have a number of traumatized women who are depressed after drunken sex. A number of men come in and report similar stds, accidental pregnancies, trauma. Regardless of consent and fault, morally, do you want to allow behaviour that leads to these negative outcomes? Do you think you'll be voted in if you allow it?

[SparkySywer]

Kinda changed my view, but only in certain situations. Not sure whether or not to give delta because of how it's only in certain situations. If someone comes into your bar and has sex with a drunk person, that drunk person isn't gonna come back. So punish the other person by banning them from all public establishments selling alcohol. But because the drinker drank irresponsibly, they should have seen it coming that they'd give consent when they otherwise wouldn't. The person should be banned, not imprisoned.

[Nepene]

[STA-CITE]> If you have acknowledged/hinted that your view has changed in some way, please award a delta. ▾ [END-CITE]Per the rules, if your view has changed in any way, no matter how small, you are obliged to award a delta. It would be bars refused to allow dangerous people to drink there. The legal literature on rape gives these examples of what indicates a person is too drunk to consent. [STA-CITE]>The cases and the literature on rape give examples. For example, a person who is falling-down drunk, too intoxicated to walk. Or unable to talk clearly or coherently. Or too uncoordinated to undress herself. Or sick drunk, slumped over a toilet vomiting or urinating on herself. [END-CITE]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/05/drinking_and_sexual_assault_on_campus_universities_must_define_when_sex.html With that level of drunkness you can't really predict what you'll do, if you can't form coherent sentences. They might be unable to effectively do physical resistance if they can't walk coherently. Their mind might be a mess of pain if they are currently being sick. We could ban people from getting that drunk, but if you can't form a coherent sentence you can't make good decisions. Could you reliably predict what you'd consent too when you couldn't form coherent sentences or walk?

[SparkySywer]

∆ My view has changed slightly. Only in those circumstances, though.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Nepene. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Nepene)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[rollingForInitiative]

[STA-CITE]>If I get drunk and blow off all my money, it's my problem. [END-CITE]Depends on how. For instance, if you enter a contract while drunk to give all your money away, the contract might be invalid. [STA-CITE]>If I get drunk and have sex, it's my problem. [END-CITE]Yes. Which is why having sex with someone who's drunk isn't rape. It's rape when the person is so wasted they cannot consent to sex.

[SparkySywer]

My arguments are coming from an ethical point of view, that it should be this way, not that the law states that it is. And my point of view applies to non-sex situations, too. If I get drunk and sign a contract, I should have thought of that when I started drinking. And if I have sex with someone, I should have thought of that when I started drinking.

[Chocomon]

I guess in this anology, you imagine a drunk person walking into a bank and signing a contract. The reality would be more close to: An insurance agent walks into a bar and looks for the most drunken looking person. He finds someone who is completely wasted and pushes make this person to sign a bunch of contracts which he can't comprehend in his state. Would you still consider the second contract being legal and not a fraud? The thing with drunken sex being considered rape or not is usually about who initiated the sex. [STA-CITE]>(But if you say, oh sir I didn't know that alcohol makes you make bad decisions it's not rape) [END-CITE]I agree with you. You making bad decisions under the influence of alcohol that you've decided to consume is still your fault and should not be considered rape. However the situation is different when it's not your decision to initiate sex. It becomes the decision of the "perpetrator" or in the example that of the insurance agent, not yours. You should not be responsible for the bad decision of your perpetrator to push something onto a person which is clearly not in the state to judge YOUR decision. [STA-CITE]>And if you were given it under a false idea of what you were ingesting, it's arguably still rape. [END-CITE]You agree that it's not the victim's fault if the victim was made to ingest something like drugs under a false idea. I guess even if a sober person might easily notice the strange taste, it's not the fault of the drunk person not to notice the drug in their drink. It's the perpetrator's fault to make the decision for the victim to ingest those spiked drink which nature they didn't understand enough about. Wouldn't you agree that the same could be said about making the decision to push the victim "ingest" the perpetrator's decision to sign a contract or sex, which they clearly couldn't comprehend in their state? Again, if it's the drunk person's (poor) decision it shouldn't be rape. It becomes rape if it's not the victim who initiated and made the decision.

[SparkySywer]

Δ

[DeltaBot]

This delta is currently disallowed as your comment contains either no or little text ([comment rule 4](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_4)). Please include an explanation for how /u/Chocomon changed your view. If you edit this in, replying to my comment will make me rescan yours. ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[rollingForInitiative]

In regards to sex specifically, you think that: 1) If you have sex while drunk and change your mind, it shouldn't be rape. 2) If you're forced to have sex, it is still rape. Is that correct? What exactly is it that people consider rape today, but you don't? I'm not sure I've seen someone argue that being drunk and having sex means that someone god raped.

[ralph-j]

You seem to entirely ignore the intent or motive of the perpetrator. If someone specifically targets drunk persons, especially because they know that they can much more easily persuade them to have sex, does that change the situation? Does it matter at all whether the alleged rapist acted in good or bad faith? Or are you saying that by definition it cannot be rape as long as the drunk person mumbled the word yes?

[oneguy2008]

Getting drunk has consequences. One such consequence is that you can be taken advantage of: people can convince you to take bad bets; take stupid risks; say crazy things; make a fool out of yourself, and so on. When people take advantage of you in these ways, it is wrong. If I convince a drunk person to sell me their car for $2, I'm a jerk. Whether or not their behavior made them vulnerable to this is beside the point. Surely the same goes for taking sexual advantage of a drunk person. When we're drunk, we can be convinced to make sexual decisions that we will later regret and never would have made while sober. Convincing someone to act in this way is not okay.

[SparkySywer]

It's not OK, it's a jerk move, but it shouldn't be criminalized. They were aware of the possibilities when they started drinking, they can serve the consequences.

[nannyhap]

A sufficiently drunk person cannot give consent to a sober or mostly sober person re: sexual interaction because it places one individual in a position of power over the other in a way the drunk person is unable to comprehend. If you're sober, or mostly sober, and you're willing to have sex with someone who is drunk enough that their decision making skills are impaired, that's still rape. If both parties are drunk and make a bad decision, that's another story altogether and only becomes rape if one party redacts consent at some point. Furthermore, the considerable dangers in consenting to sexual activity with a stranger or acquaintance with whom one is not close are a really really huge factor. Legally speaking, you can't consent to certain dangerous behaviors because there's a chance of serious injury, illness, or death. For example, I can't consent to driving a car that's deemed dangerous or totaled. I can't consent to letting a doctor recycle needles from previous patients to be used on me. I can't consent to being prescribed medication that isn't approved by the FDA, or to getting on a roller coaster ride deemed dangerous, because it could cause anything from grievous bodily harm to the end of my life. Being manipulated into a dangerous situation by a stranger is not something that a drunk person can consent to, because it's dangerous. Now, I would argue that a drunk person could potentially be capable of *reaffirming* consent they'd already given, just not giving it while drunk. Saying "we should bang when we get home" and then getting drunk and proceeding to bang when you get home isn't rape or even predatory behavior. Saying "I'm going to get laid tonight" and going home with a stranger, which is Sober!You's goal already, isn't rape or predatory behavior. The problem comes when people are coerced into the behavior with no previous intention of doing so. For what it's worth, while I appreciate affirmative enthusiastic consent laws re: the subject of rape, I don't appreciate how gendered the discussion is. As a queer person I don't tend to come at it from a "dudes are always rapists ladies are always victims" perspective, and think that gendered application such as "it's always rape if she was drunk whether he was drunk or not" is a misapplication of the idea.

[DHCKris]

But the other party is making a decision, too: to have sex with a visibly drunk person, which they should know means their judgement is clouded. Between a sober person and a drunk person, why is it unreasonable to hold the sober person more responsible for their decision for having sex with a clearly drunk person? (in my opinion, it is only rape when drunkeness is obvious and/or taken advantage of)

[SparkySywer]

If the drunk person goes out and gets drunk knowing that there may be consequences, they shouldn't be able to blame someone else for it.

[DHCKris]

But a sober person knows a drunk person makes bad decisions, so why would they ask them to have sex if they know there is a strong likelihood that they wouldn't have consented anyway? Someone having sex with you isn't a *consequence.* Falling down the stairs is a consequence. Someone having sex with you is *that person knowing your perception is impaired and taking advantage of that.* It's a shitty thing to do, and it's rape. How is finding a drunk person to have sex with any different from making them drunk yourself?

[SparkySywer]

[STA-CITE]>But a sober person knows a drunk person makes bad decisions, so why would they ask them to have sex if they know there is a strong likelihood that they wouldn't have consented anyway? [END-CITE]They still consented. If I had sex with someone ugly, I might not have consented if I was a superstar trillionaire, but I still consented. [STA-CITE]>How is finding a drunk person to have sex with any different from making them drunk yourself? [END-CITE]They made themself drunk. When drinking you must be responsible, and that includes not drinking so hard that you'd have sex with someone, which doesn't just happen from a few drinks spread out through the night.

[DHCKris]

My point is, it takes two to tango. In this situation, there are TWO decisions being made, a decision to drink so much your inhibitions are lowered, and a decision to take advantage of that person's inebriated state. I don't think all drunk sex is rape, but I do think there is a threshold you cross where you are too drunk to consent, and a sober person should know this and not touch that person. Everyone knows how people act when they're drunk, and if they don't, they need to be taught (hence, "teach men not to rape," which of course should really be teach all people not to rape, as men are not the only ones who rape). [STA-CITE]>They made themself drunk. When drinking you must be responsible, and that includes not drinking so hard that you'd have sex with someone, which doesn't just happen from a few drinks spread out through the night. [END-CITE]Why do you have to be responsible for what *other people* do to you? You're basically saying that this is an acceptable defense: "oh, I'm horny and I know that drunk people don't make good decisions, so I went to a bar and decided to chat one of them up until, in her confused state, she agreed to have sex with me. Then I grabbed her and brought her into my car and we had sex. But she said 'yes' even though she was drunk and therefore I knew it probably wasn't true, I just wanted to get my rocks off."

[SparkySywer]

Yes, it is an acceptable defense. You're a bit of a jerk if you use it, but you're not a criminal. Because, as you said, it takes two to tango. They may've taken advantage of their drunken state, but they still said yes. Sure, they took advantage of them, but being taken advantage of really should be considered when you're drinking heavily all night long. And the other person shouldn't be held accountable because of the victim's irresponsibility.

[DHCKris]

I just don't understand your view. I get that if you are drinking heavily you are responsible for the decisions you make if you, for example, get behind the wheel of a car, but having sex is something that somebody else could be "deciding" for you. I feel like your view is really dehumanizing: in your eyes, the sober person who asks the drunk person for sex isn't a thinking human with their own responsibility but a "consequence." I don't see a difference in drugging someone so they will agree to do what you want and merely picking someone already that way who you know will do what you want against their better judgment. In other words, if you CONSCIOUSLY have sex with someone you KNOW might not have agreed to it while sober, you are responsible for the violation of trust and bodily autonomy that takes place. Why is it so hard to tell people, "don't have sex with drunk people because they make bad decisions?" Why do we have to say, "you are responsible for people who force you to make bad decisions while drunk?" Makes no sense.

[SparkySywer]

Except they aren't being forced to make these bad decisions.

[DHCKris]

Yes, they are. They're being knowingly manipulated to make decisions they wouldn't have made otherwise.

[SparkySywer]

If I had sex with someone who was ugly, I wouldn't have done so if I was a trillionaire, but they didn't force me to make this decision.

[AuthorizedWayne]

*Why* do you believe this? This is the core of your view, but you just keep repeating it instead of breaking it down and explaining why you think this

[SparkySywer]

This person restated to common opposition, I restated my statement. I explained it in the original post. I believe this because every other state you could be in, and every other bad thing that could happen you'd pretty much be at fault, because you didn't drink responsibly. Why should sex be any different? Because the drinker's emotions of violation, regret, and dehumanization? Other situations, like selling all my possessions, are have far worse effects and are my fault, so why should sex be any different? If you get an STD, your fault, you drank irresponsibly, sorry you got an STD, but you still drank irresponsibly. If you get pregnant, I'm sorry, and the person you had sex with should help raise your kid, but I'm sorry, you drank irresponsibly.

[AuthorizedWayne]

[STA-CITE]> Other situations, like selling all my possessions, are have far worse effects and are my fault [END-CITE]Why do you think that this would be 100% your fault? I'd consider it highly unethical and downright cruel to buy all of a drunk person's possessions even if they agreed to it (if they agreed while drunk).

[SparkySywer]

It would be unethical and downright cruel, but you drank irresponsibly. You didn't have a drink or two and sell *all of your belongings*, you drank heavily, and for a while. And your irresponsibility resulted in you losing your possessions.

[AuthorizedWayne]

But it is possible to drink a lot without selling everything you own, in fact, most of the time people drink heavily nothing bad happens. Humans love to drink alcohol, that's been true ever since we settled down and started farming. So what's different between getting drunk and having an uneventful night or getting drunk and waking up with no possessions? *The other person*. That's what makes these situations different, the fact that a person took advantage of you. If you were saying that a drunk person is responsible for what happened to them if they drank too much and tripped onto concrete or held lit fireworks then I'd be more inclined to agree with you. If there isn't another person involved that's a reasonable thing to say. But in cases where another person was involved, blaming the drunk person for everything that happens isn't reasonable, because there is another person there who bears blame.

[hacksoncode]

The basic problem you seem to have is a complete lack of understanding of what "consent" is. It's not the mere act of saying "yes". A child can say "yes" to sex, even enthusiastically, but that's not consent because they *lack the capability to understand what they are consenting to*. A mentally ill person that is incapable of understanding what is happening due to a delusion is similarly not able to consent. If you point a gun at someone and they say "yes", clearly they aren't consenting because they were coerced. But the same goes for a boss insisting their assistant have sex with them or they lose their job. Arguing that they could have said "no" isn't going to fly. So, yes, if a person gets drunk and they *actually* consent, as in the have both the capability to understand why they are doing, and they aren't being coerced, I would agree that it is not rape. The problem is that, voluntarily drunk or not, sufficiently drunk people simply lack the capability to validly consent, because they aren't able to understand what is going on. Them saying "yes" is no more meaningful than a child saying "yes". And one last thing: regardless of the legality or ethics involved, it's incredibly dangerous to have sex with someone that might be "blackout drunk", because they won't remember consenting, whether they did or not, and whether your view is "correct" or not. Imagine the position that you'd be in, having had sex with them that they *genuinely* don't remember consenting to. You're going to have a hell of a time convincing a jury of your story when they are absolutely genuine when they claim not to have consented, and it's your word against theirs, especially if you *do* remember what you were doing and are arguing from the moral low ground of having done the asshole thing of having sex with someone too drunk to understand what was happening.

[SparkySywer]

I understand what consent is, I used "say yes" to simplify it and not have to explain every single way consent can happen. But a drunk person can give consent even if they don't understand what's going on. Also, while yes, a child giving consent isn't very meaningful, if a two year old dropped a knife on my head, they shouldn't be punished because they aren't old enough and don't know what they're doing. But if someone's drunk enough and gets pissed off and shoots me, they would be arrested. They are old enough. Sex is more complex than "just don't kill someone", which is why it would be better to wait until they're an adult instead of when you can understand murder. And if someone doesn't remember whether or not they are consenting, and the other one can prove they did consent, then it isn't rape. They consented. If it can't be proven that they did or didn't consent, it'd be like any other crime that there isn't enough evidence for, as it should be. Unfortunately if it was rape, they would be set free, but if a serial killer cannot be proven guilty, they'd be set free, and most people I know consider murder to be more terrible than rape, and I'm sure those who don't at least put it up really damn high on their lists of heinous crimes.

[MontiBurns]

Are you talking ethically or legally? I can't speak to the law regarding this, but ethically this is definitely at least a gray area. For example, you're at a party or bar, a bit drunk, and a girl who is completely gone/blackout drunk starts grinding up against you and wants to go back to your place. You know that she probably isn't in her right state of mind, that going to bed with her might cause some emotional trauma, or at the very least deep embarrassment and shame. Knowing this, you have two options: you can decide to sleep with her, because ultimately 'she did it to herself', or you can decide 'any pleasure or joy i gain from this experience could possibly be dwarfed by any emotional or psychological trauma she might feel when she wakes up and realizes what happened.' The problem with the first decision is that it's basically a justification of "She did it to herself" while removing *your* actions from the equation. This opens up the possibility to going after blackout drunk girls guiltlessly. The reason why the new 'anti rape culture' has really pushed the second attitude is that it encourages playing it safe among a sea of possibilities. People get drunk and make dumb decisions, but these decisions can have deep psychological impacts on people, and more people, particularly men, being aware of these impacts should make them more empathetic and not risk the long term emotional well being of a person just to get their rocks off for one night. Basically, it's highly selfish. I'd liken it to seeing a $100 bill fall out of someone's pocket without them noticing. Maybe that person is rich and won't really care about 100 dollars. On the other hand, maybe that 100 represents that person's food budget for the next 2 weeks. You could scoop it up and that person might never notice it was you, or you can advise that person, return their money. If you decide to keep the money, the impact could be inconsequential, to painful, to devastating. If you decide to return the money, the consequences could be relief, to joy, to gratitude.

[SparkySywer]

Ethically. While yeah, if you have sex with a drunk girl you might be a bit of a dick, but you shouldn't be shunned from society or arrested. She's drunk, and by drinking so heavily (since if you have only one small drink, I doubt it'll make you make decisions like to have sex with someone) she must accept the consequences. Also, if a $100 bill fell out of their pocket, they didn't choose to drop it, or they didn't choose to have it in to loosely that there was a significant risk of it falling out.

[MontiBurns]

[STA-CITE]>While yeah, if you have sex with a drunk girl you might be a bit of a dick, but you shouldn't be shunned from society or arrested. [END-CITE]I think it really depends. Perhaps you can forgive one or two overly drunk one night stand hookups, but if you exhibit this type of serial behavior (that is, always going after really drunk girls), i think it would qualify as both predatory and 'rape'. [STA-CITE]>She's drunk, and by drinking so heavily she must accept the consequences. [END-CITE]This seems a bit too black and white. Lets say I see a girl at a bar, start chatting her up and buying her drinks. First some strong mixed drinks, then i start throwing in some shots. Sure, she's taking the shots 'willingly,' but I'm the one keepin em comin and playing off a drunk person's impulses, while she's just drinkin more because her judgement has already been compromised. Do you think I should be completely exhoneratted, given that she was consciously imbibing what I was basically forcefeeding her, and I was doing this with the intention of impairing her judgement to the extent that she'd sleep with me?

[SparkySywer]

[STA-CITE]>but if you exhibit this type of serial behavior (that is, always going after really drunk girls), i think it would qualify as both predatory and 'rape'. [END-CITE]I guess this could be an instance of when shunning someone might be a good decision, since it's like being a dick to someone: It's legal, but it's not particularly nice, and if it's common for them to do, so you might want to avoid them. [STA-CITE]>Lets say I see a girl at a bar, start chatting her up and buying her drinks. First some strong mixed drinks, then i start throwing in some shots. Sure, she's taking the shots 'willingly,' but I'm the one keepin em comin and playing off a drunk person's impulses, while she's just drinkin more because her judgement has already been compromised. Do you think I should be completely exhoneratted, given that she was consciously imbibing what I was basically forcefeeding her, and I was doing this with the intention of impairing her judgement to the extent that she'd sleep with me? [END-CITE]She took the first ones willingly, and should accept that this may lead to more drinks, which will lead to sex. If you drink you should accept all possibilities. That's the point of "Drink Responsibly". Be responsible.

[CurryF4rts]

[STA-CITE]> these impacts should make them more empathetic and not risk the long term emotional well being of a person just to get their rocks off for one night. Basically, it's highly selfish. [END-CITE]Are girls incapable of this?

[worknman]

There are several different scenarios that could play out here. Girl gets drunk out of her mind, and ... - Decides to have hot monkey sex and then can't remember it the next day, or - Gives consent, but is too drunk to consider the ramifications, or - Is too drunk to know what's going on, so just lays there while the guy has his way with her, or - Is trying to fight the guy off, but is too drunk to do so ... I'm curious which of these you were thinking of, because we could definitely get a good debate going about some of them.

[SparkySywer]

[STA-CITE]>Decides to have hot monkey sex and then can't remember it the next day [END-CITE]That's her problem. It was her choice. And honestly, if it's left at that she can't even press charges, she doesn't know. If the person she had monkey sex with then keeps talking about it, she would press charges for sexual harassment. [STA-CITE]>Gives consent, but is too drunk to consider the ramifications [END-CITE]Her problem. [STA-CITE]>Is too drunk to know what's going on, so just lays there while the guy has his way with her [END-CITE]She didn't give consent. I should probably include in my main post that she also has to say "yes" or something like that, which is already considered to be included in consent. [STA-CITE]>Is trying to fight the guy off, but is too drunk to do so [END-CITE]Also didn't give consent. Still rape.

[worknman]

I think I agree with you, except possibly on the second scenario. This would be extremely difficult to prove legally, so I'll speak philosophically here. IMO, even if she gives consent, a guy still needs to play it by ear and do the right thing. I mean, if you've got her from behind and have to hold her up while you bang her to keep her from passing out, you should probably go to jail :P

[kizzan]

Saying yes could also be nonverbal. Those kind of encounters are more complicated than a business transaction.

[SparkySywer]

I didn't mean exactly "yes". If they come onto you, it's pretty much generally considered to be consenting if someone comes onto you it's consenting. Sorry if that caused confusion.

[kizzan]

No confusion. I was just clarifying. I agree with you.

[kizzan]

I would say the last two are rape.

[Subbrick]

They are cut and dry cases of rape. Even the second could be legally considered rape depending on the specific circumstances.

[kizzan]

I would not consider that rape. I also don't like the double standard.

[Subbrick]

Based on the one line that was given about the scenario, it isn't enough to say that it IS rape. But it is entirely possible that it could be rape, especially if the consent was non-verbal or "implied." Many things that would be considered consent, like excessive closeness or asking to sleep at your apartment because they don't seem up to driving, could just be "normal" drunk behavior for the person. Someone agreeing to something when they are lucid and someone agreeing to something when they are cognitively impaired are two different things. Is the second item in the list always rape? No. We don't have that much info on the situation. As for the double standard, I agree. It is ridiculous how many males are treated when they are sexually assaulted. It is frankly disgusting that people look at a rape victim and tell them to man up or joke about their experience.

[kizzan]

I don't believe there is a rape unless it is in the thoughts and actions of the rapist. If the male honestly believed there was consent but there was a miscommunication AND she never backed away or said no in any way, I don't consider that a rape. You are right the person could not be thinking about sex when she is close to him, but when he moves in and starts kissing her, does she move away? When he feels her, does she move away? When he begins taking off her clothes, does she protest in any way? Sex is a process that if she gave a miscommunication yes and no "no" along the way, I just think that is unreasonable to call that rape.

[turole]

[STA-CITE]>I don't believe there is a rape unless it is in the thoughts and actions of the rapist. If the male honestly believed there was consent but there was a miscommunication AND she never backed away or said no in any way, I don't consider that a rape. [END-CITE]Not legally. If you cannot provide consent it doesn't matter that the rapist "totally thought they were into it." Rape victims reply in many ways and it isn't always freaking out and pushing away their attacker. What if the victim is intimidated? What if they were too fucked on something to know what was going on? Not ethically either. If I come over and grab your keys to borrow your car from the weekend and you don't stop me then I still stole your car. [STA-CITE]>when he moves in and starts kissing her, does she move away? [END-CITE]What if she doesn't kiss back? Or maybe she starts kissing him back because she's blackout and reacting? [STA-CITE]>When he feels her, does she move away? [END-CITE]What if she just sits there without progressing or moving away? [STA-CITE]>When he begins taking off her clothes, does she protest in any way? [END-CITE]Doesn't matter. Does s/he give consent? That is the *only* question that matters when talking about rape. Get *explicit* and *affirmative* consent to the actions that are going to be undertaken. "Hey babe, you ready for me to fuck you?" If someone can't, or won't, answer "yes" to this question then don't have sex with them. There, not that hard. Lack of protest does **not** mean presence of consent.

[kizzan]

I understand that some crazies chamgef the law recently to benefit women unjustly. That is part of the war in men. Ethically both parites are in the wrong unless they are married.

[turole]

The first part of my comment was gender neutral and I only used "she" in the second half because you used it first. If **anyone** cannot provide consent it doesn't matter what the rapist thinks. If a man is intimidated by a woman for whatever reason the same logic can apply. If he is too drunk then he might be blackout and reacting. As far as I am aware in the legal system most laws are written and considered in this fashion. They might be prosecuted differently, but that is a separate conversation from that of groups changing to laws to benefit women. On that note, could you find me a law being changed recently in regards to sexual assault that benefit women unjustly? Like, actually give me a link to the changes in the legal stature or case examples that have been used successfully in subsequent cases. I'd be very interested if it exists in the Western world. If anything (again, as far as I am aware), recent times have made it so that rape laws are getting more gender neutral rather than targeted towards men attacking women. In regards to marriage and sex I think there's a big difference between a couple having consensual sex in a committed relationship and people raping other people. You may think that both are wrong, but I hope that we can agree that one is significantly worse.

[kizzan]

Unfortunately it doesnt work out that way. Female rapists are usually not treated as such. Until very recently a woman could not even rape a man by having sex the natural way because the law was written as unconsenual penetration. Even with the new law there is definately a bias against men.

[Subbrick]

If she is completely passive the entire time but never explicitly gives or withdraws consent, how is that different from the 3rd scenario? Both times the person initiating assumes that the other is on board but never gets confirmation either way. What if they feel intimidated or scared? Maybe she thought they might get violent if she said no. Is that invalidated because they didn't explicitly say no?

[kizzan]

If she gave a signal that she wants sex, even if it is misunderstood, then she is not that out of it as described in number three. There also is a difference between a guy kissing and girl and the girl accept the kiss as it comes by moving her mouth and lips as well and a guy kissing a girl that is passed out. So while there could be situations where a girl not saying no could mean she is passed out it could also happen in a situation where she is not passed out. It is really obvious is someone is not passed out.

[FleetwoodMatt]

If I get drunk and stumble into a dark alley alone and I get beaten and robbed, it's still a crime, even if my impaired decision-making led me to it. Not all drunk sex is rape, but one person's impairment does not absolve another's wrongdoing.

[SparkySywer]

You don't make a decision to get beaten up in an alley. Only things that you can make a decision to do while sober you can still suffer the consequences of that decision even if it was made while drunk.

[BolshevikMuppet]

True enough. But if you consent to giving a homeless guy $50 while drunk, you don't get to turn around and sue him to get the money back because he should have known you were drunk, couldn't consent to a transfer of property, and thus he robbed you.

[kizzan]

I think OP is commenting on the fact that some crazies out there think that if both a man and a woman knowingly get drunk at a party or otherwise, and they both have consensual sex, then the man is a rapist because the woman cannot give consent when she is drunk in the same way a child cannot consent to sex. I know, you cannot make this stuff up.

[parentheticalobject]

What if you get drunk and I get you to sign a contract saying that I own your car, or your house or your business? You might stick to your point and say that yes, I own those things if you signed the contract. But legally, you're wrong. If a person was too intoxicated, they don't have the legal ability to enter into some kinds of agreements, even if they're the ones that intoxicated themselves. You can say that it *shouldn't* be that way, but it's entirely consistent with the way the law works.

[YeahWellFuckU2]

I'm a man (I'm sorry for being a man). If I get plastered and have sex, it's not rape, it's beer goggles. Women are seldom held to the standards of responsibility men are. I googled 'beer goggles ad' and the top link was ["the most sexist beer ads of all time"](http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2013/5/6/20/enhanced-buzz-wide-10563-1367886997-5.jpg) because even when "women are raping men" it's sexism against women.

[Aclopolipse]

This is not r/mensrights.

[YeahWellFuckU2]

I'm sorry. I was mansplaining again. The double standard is fine. You're right. ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Aclopolipse. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Aclopolipse)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[Prince_of_Savoy]

This is sex though, not a contract. That's why you don't have to (yet) sign any paperwork or have a Notary present.

[CurryF4rts]

The whole reason why rape is rape is because of consent and your liberty interest in giving or denying it.

[Prince_of_Savoy]

Right, but consenting to sex is still different from signing a contract. If you use that logic, selling something to a drunk person is theft, because they can't consent to giving away their money.

[parentheticalobject]

Still, OP is saying that if you consent to getting drunk, you therefore consent to anything you do while drunk. The way consent normally works, that is quite obviously not the case. Sex isn't specifically a written contract, but there are additional requirements for it to be consensual, just like there are with a lot of things. For one, you can't offer valid consent if you are sufficiently intoxicated.

[Prince_of_Savoy]

[STA-CITE]>Still, OP is saying that if you consent to getting drunk, you therefore consent to anything you do while drunk. [END-CITE]That's not what OP is arguing. He is arguing that it is *possible* to consent while you are drunk. You are still able to say either yes or no, it's just that the chances have changed. But that is your responsibility to take into account. [STA-CITE]>The way consent normally works, that is quite obviously not the case. Sex isn't specifically a written contract, but there are additional requirements for it to be consensual, just like there are with a lot of things. For one, you can't offer valid consent if you are sufficiently intoxicated. [END-CITE]You have to consent to giving someone money for it to be legal, right? Otherwise, it is theft. So according to your logic, someone selling something to a visibly intoxicated person is a thief.

[parentheticalobject]

I'm not saying being drunk removes your ability to consent to absolutely anything. The fact that a heavily drunk person *can* consent to do something like buying a candy bar but *cannot* consent to sell their car or house proves what is my point - different things have different standards required for being able to consent to those things. Some things an intoxicated person can consent to, some things they can't, and sex happens to fall in the latter category.

[Prince_of_Savoy]

So why do you think sex falls in the latter category, and not the former?

[parentheticalobject]

In my first post, I said that you can subjectively say that the requirements for sex should or shouldn't be something, but at the very least saying that a drunk person is unable to consent is not at all inconsistent with general ideas about permission and alcohol. If you're asking from a moral standpoint, then I would certainly say that if a person is too drunk to understand what is going on, then having sex with them is a bad thing. I'm not particularly trying to argue that, because honestly, I don't think I'd make much progress against anyone who disagreed on something like that. If you're asking from a legal perspective why I think that, it's too easy to answer.

[Prince_of_Savoy]

[STA-CITE]>If you're asking from a moral standpoint, then I would certainly say that if a person is too drunk to understand what is going on, then having sex with them is a bad thing. [END-CITE]I don't think OP is referring to being so drunk that to literally not know what is going on around you, but just drunk enough to not make decisions with the same quality you would sober. At least that would be my position. [STA-CITE]>If you're asking from a legal perspective why I think that, it's too easy to answer. [END-CITE]Can you try?

[parentheticalobject]

[STA-CITE]> I don't think OP is referring to being so drunk that to literally not know what is going on around you, but just drunk enough to not make decisions with the same quality you would sober. At least that would be my position. [END-CITE]Specifically how drunk you have to be is a murky grey area, but just going by the literal text of what they said, it seems to indicate they think that no matter how drunk you are, it's not rape if you consciously chose to get drunk. [STA-CITE]>Can you try? [END-CITE]What I mean is that from a legal standpoint, it is rape, because that's what the law defines it as. Laws differ by jurisdiction, but in most places intoxication can invalidate a person's ability to consent, and thus if someone has sex with such a person, they have unarguably comitted the crime of rape.

[Prince_of_Savoy]

[STA-CITE]>Specifically how drunk you have to be is a murky grey area, but just going by the literal text of what they said, it seems to indicate they think that no matter how drunk you are, it's not rape if you consciously chose to get drunk. [END-CITE]Have you read OP's edit? He makes it clear that no matter how drunk or why, both parties of course have to agree to have sex. And if you literally cannot comprehend what is going on around you, you can't agree. [STA-CITE]>What I mean is that from a legal standpoint, it is rape, because that's what the law defines it as. Laws differ by jurisdiction, but in most places intoxication can invalidate a person's ability to consent, and thus if someone has sex with such a person, they have unarguably comitted the crime of rape. [END-CITE]As far as I'm aware the definition of consent used in these laws is not the same that is used in legal contracts, and does not require anyone to be completely sober. It just means not against their will or when they are unconscious/don't understand what is happening. Was anyone ever actually convicted for sleeping with someone who was drunk, even though they agreed at the time?

[Subbrick]

Someone who is visually impaired but doesn't have their cognitive capabilities impaired isn't a very good comparison. It would be more accurate to make the comparison of making a deal with someone who is mentally ill. If I went to a nursing home and started convincing alzheimer's patients to sign over their possessions to me, the contract would not hold up in court. They are not in a mental state to make a legally binding contract.

[Prince_of_Savoy]

[STA-CITE]>Someone who is visually impaired but doesn't have their cognitive capabilities impaired isn't a very good comparison. [END-CITE]Visibly, not visually. Meaning obviously drunk. [STA-CITE]>If I went to a nursing home and started convincing alzheimer's patients to sign over their possessions to me, the contract would not hold up in court. They are not in a mental state to make a legally binding contract. [END-CITE]But neither is sex a contract, nor is a drunk person mentally ill. So do you think selling something to someone who is drunk is theft? Because that is a much better comparison imho.

[Subbrick]

A drunk person can have their judgement impaired to the point that they would be as easy to manipulate as someone who is mentally ill. The reason that going to the nursing home to swindle old people out of their possessions in scummy is because it is calculated, predatory behavior on a group that I have identified as easy to manipulate. Similarly, if I found a woman with down syndrome and purposefully manipulated her into having sex with me, because I knew that she wouldn't have the awareness to fully understand what I was doing, that would be utterly despicable. How is preying on someone who is so drunk that they are unable to stop me anymore than a mentally ill person any better?

[Prince_of_Savoy]

So selling something to someone who is drunk is theft? If not, what is the difference?

[Subbrick]

If a drunk person walked into my store and bought as 25 cent piece of gum, it wouldn't be immoral for me to sell it to them. However, if I went to a bar found an extremely drunk man, brought him to my car dealership, and manipulated him into buying an expensive car, that would be immoral. It is a difference in scale, impetus, and intention. Buying the car could ruin the man financially, but the gum would not. Going out an finding the man in the bar is predatory, selling him gum is not. The car dealer is specifically preying on someone they know is vulnerable, while the convenience store owner isn't. Hunting for sex with someone who is significantly intoxicated is predatory, is targeting someone specifically when they are vulnerable, and sex, especially non-consentual, can have long-term emotional and physical consequences. If someone found you drunk, extracted your sperm to get themselves pregnant, and sued you for child support, would that be immoral predatory behaivor?

[Prince_of_Savoy]

[STA-CITE]>If a drunk person walked into my store and bought as 25 cent piece of gum, it wouldn't be immoral for me to sell it to them. [END-CITE]Why not? He couldn't consent, so you stole the money, regardless of how little it is. Or is theft acceptable below a certain amount of money? How about if I have sex with a drunk person but just put the tip in? [STA-CITE]>It is a difference in scale, impetus, and intention. [END-CITE]Good thing no one ever mentioned anything relating to the latter two then. [STA-CITE]>Going out an finding the man in the bar is predatory, selling him gum is not. [END-CITE]So if the drunk person is actively seeking out sex from the sober person, it's okay? [STA-CITE]>The car dealer is specifically preying on someone they know is vulnerable, while the convenience store owner isn't. [END-CITE]So if a sober person spontaniously sleeps with a drunk person without having planned it, that's okay? [STA-CITE]>Hunting for sex with someone who is significantly intoxicated is predatory, is targeting someone specifically when they are vulnerable, and sex, especially non-consentual, can have long-term emotional and physical consequences. [END-CITE]But this isn't what this CMV is about. I think we can all agree that preying on drunk people because you think you couldn't get them otherwise is wrong. And some drunk sex is like that I'm sure, but this is about all drunken sex. And this also isn't about what is scummy behavior, but what is rape. [STA-CITE]>If someone found you drunk, extracted your sperm to get themselves pregnant, and sued you for child support, would that be immoral predatory behavior? [END-CITE]Depends. Did I still have the presence of mind to understand what was going on? Did I agree? Did I get drunk out of my free will in the first place? Did I ask her to take my sperm, or did she ask me?

[kizzan]

Actually that is not completely true. If the other party did not know you were impaired then the contract is still valid. If the other party did know then the contract is voidable (not void), but the other party does not face any criminal charge.

[Thomzzz]

Wait what this is not true. Lucy v. Zehmer is the first case most law students read in their first year. IDK why I am pointing this out and not sleeping right now.

[greyGoop8]

In that case the contract was upheld by the court despite Zehmer's intoxication. Contracts made by intoxicated people are typically upheld.

[mr_indigo]

Are you arguing that this is the legal position or that is a moral position that should be the legal position? In any case, the examples you use aren't quite accurate; you being a drunk driver doesn't involve any other person making decisions that affect you. Similarly, if you annoy someone while you're drunk and challenge them and they punch you in the face, they're still liable for assault. Contracts can be similarly voidable if one party was drunk when they signed them. In essence, people don't get free license to do what they want with you just because you've drunk alcohol. Laws that enshrine this are to protect vulnerable people from exploitation, even if their vulnerability comes from self-induced intoxication. In short - the other person involved is capable of making a decision not to exploit the drunk person, and we as a society want them to do so because exploitation is bad.

[SparkySywer]

Moral position. They put themselves in a situation of vulnerability, they should serve the consequences if there are any.

[AuthorizedWayne]

[STA-CITE]> They put themselves in a situation of vulnerability, they should serve the consequences if there are any. [END-CITE]What can a person do that *doesn't* put them in a position of vulnerability? Getting in a taxi puts someone in a position of vulnerability. Going outside puts a person in a position of vulnerability. Sitting at home puts a person in a position of vulnerability.

[SparkySywer]

I wasn't saying that it's a vulnerable person's fault, just that if you were vulnerable, it's not an excuse to say "oh yeah the consent I gave was fake that was rape." If you go outside and someone forces you to have sex with them even after you say no, that's a different story if you had a few too many and you say yes to someone who wants to have sex with you.

[mr_indigo]

How far does your principle extend? Are you at fault for having stuff stolen by owning expensive stuff? Are you at fault for getting beaten up because you entered the presence of someone looking for a fight?

[SparkySywer]

Having expensive stuff doesn't result in bad things happening to you, so you shouldn't have to expect that you'll be robbed. If you're drinking heavily, it's well known that you *will* make bad decisions. Also, you cannot possibly know who's gonna be looking for a fight, so entering their presence doesn't make it your fault you were beaten up.

[dulceximenabo]

I would argue that people that buy expensive things do expect to be robbed more than a person that doesn't. My parents always taught me not to leave valuables where they can be seen from outside my car, because owning expensive things *does* get you robbed. Should I have to worry about this? No. In the real world, do I have do worry about this? Yes. Also, you can just go into a bar to get drunk and not want to have sex at all. Getting drunk doesn't *necessarily* mean you'll end up making bad decisions, like having sex when you didn't want to. I would like to know what is the real difference between the drunk consent you give to someone who got you drunk and the drunk consent you give to someone when you got yourself drunk. Is it also rape if someone gets you drunk then leaves then someone else comes in and you consent to having sex with them? You say that in that case it's not the raped person's fault because they didn't get themselves drunk. But then again the second person that walked in could've just thought that you did get yourself drunk so if you consent despite being drunk then it's ok. But you're not going to charge the person that slipped something into your drink with rape are you? they didn't really rape anyone.

[forestfly1234]

Isn't that just the definition of blame the victim? Inviting a guy over to her apt. places a woman in a position of vulnerability. If she was raped would that be her fault too?

[SparkySywer]

If a woman goes into a guys apartment, and then says yes to the sex, or consents in other ways it's her fault. But if she doesn't consent, she is raped. I'm not trying to blame the victim, I'm saying the victim can't use their vulnerability as an excuse to null the consent that they did give (given that they put themselves in their position).