I honestly would vouch for a similar figure to the designated driver. I’ll call it the designated handler, some sort of a box staff of allies trying to keep you in the fight, but also checking if you are okay to continue.
It really depends on the situation. Two people of similar intoxication levels can consent. But at the same time when with an intoxicated person you need to be making certain they’re moving forward with you and consenting.
At least that’s my perspective as someone who will get involved with strangers while drinking at bars.
When someone’s blacked out or unable to enthusiastically consent (ie advance the acts of their own volition without being pressured or otherwise coerced) then they fundamentally can’t consent
I once raped my wife, then. She was drunk, came back home drunk and wanted to fuck me hard. I told her I didn’t feel like it was right to have sex with her in such condition, but she just didn’t want to hear about my decent comments and told me to get off my high horses and just fuck her. So I did. Should I be ashamed of myself? Because, I’m not, it’s not like its something easy to forget, but in a good way.
The point here is that any intoxication is bad - negative is its characteristic. Doubling that negativity doesnt make it any better than if it was just one person intoxicated.
So now you’re declaring a moral judgement on drinking? That’s got nothing to do with this discussion. At question here is about culpability for rape when a victim is inebriated. The counter question is whether two equally drunk people having sex are raping each other. I think we can agree that being drunk doesn’t excuse one from raping. And being drunk to the point of passing out or nearly so means a person cannot give consent so anyone having sex with them is raping them. If both parties involved are in such a state, they probably won’t have sex anyway since they’ll just both pass out. So the interesting case is where both parties are just drunk enough to lower their inhibitions without becoming incoherent, and have sex with each other. Due to the symmetry of the situation, it’s hard to conclude that a crime has been committed since it would mean both parties have committed crimes against each other (unless you apply some sexist-based logic). And that finding (which you seemingly are attempting to avoid) leads to the question of case with one party being in that state, but the other not drunk, or less drunk and doing exactly the same thing. In that case the drunker person is doing and has done to them the exact same thing, so how can they in one case be a victim, and one case not?
So now you’re declaring a moral judgement on drinking?
Not what is said.
since it would mean both parties have committed crimes against each other
And that would be true. Let me rephrase it: intoxication inhibits your ability to consent - meaning all intoxicated participants are unable to consent.
This isn’t about drinking morality, its about involving sexual acts while being intoxicated. There is a clear difference.
But to say, it looks like youre declaring the rape culture an insignificant thing - as long as everyone is drunk equally it somehow becomes OK to have sex with everyone?
It’s hard for two unconscious people to have sex. One of them has to be conscious enough to be able to move. Even if they are drunk they are still responsible for having sex with unconscious person.
It may depend on jurisdiction but usually it’s illegal to have sex with someone unable to consent. I think that if they are drunk but are still consenting (verbally or non-verbally) it’s not considered rape.
The more interesting one is what if both are under the influence of alcohol/drugs?
I honestly would vouch for a similar figure to the designated driver. I’ll call it the designated handler, some sort of a box staff of allies trying to keep you in the fight, but also checking if you are okay to continue.
It really depends on the situation. Two people of similar intoxication levels can consent. But at the same time when with an intoxicated person you need to be making certain they’re moving forward with you and consenting.
At least that’s my perspective as someone who will get involved with strangers while drinking at bars.
When someone’s blacked out or unable to enthusiastically consent (ie advance the acts of their own volition without being pressured or otherwise coerced) then they fundamentally can’t consent
Just because two people who are sober can consent doesn’t mean two people who are intoxicated can
The whole point is that intoxicated people can’t consent - like at all.
So if two intoxicated people have sex, they’re always raping each other?
If only one person is intoxicated is it always rape?
The answer is yes, because intoxication is involved.
I once raped my wife, then. She was drunk, came back home drunk and wanted to fuck me hard. I told her I didn’t feel like it was right to have sex with her in such condition, but she just didn’t want to hear about my decent comments and told me to get off my high horses and just fuck her. So I did. Should I be ashamed of myself? Because, I’m not, it’s not like its something easy to forget, but in a good way.
Not what I asked.
The point here is that any intoxication is bad - negative is its characteristic. Doubling that negativity doesnt make it any better than if it was just one person intoxicated.
So now you’re declaring a moral judgement on drinking? That’s got nothing to do with this discussion. At question here is about culpability for rape when a victim is inebriated. The counter question is whether two equally drunk people having sex are raping each other. I think we can agree that being drunk doesn’t excuse one from raping. And being drunk to the point of passing out or nearly so means a person cannot give consent so anyone having sex with them is raping them. If both parties involved are in such a state, they probably won’t have sex anyway since they’ll just both pass out. So the interesting case is where both parties are just drunk enough to lower their inhibitions without becoming incoherent, and have sex with each other. Due to the symmetry of the situation, it’s hard to conclude that a crime has been committed since it would mean both parties have committed crimes against each other (unless you apply some sexist-based logic). And that finding (which you seemingly are attempting to avoid) leads to the question of case with one party being in that state, but the other not drunk, or less drunk and doing exactly the same thing. In that case the drunker person is doing and has done to them the exact same thing, so how can they in one case be a victim, and one case not?
Not what is said.
And that would be true. Let me rephrase it: intoxication inhibits your ability to consent - meaning all intoxicated participants are unable to consent.
This isn’t about drinking morality, its about involving sexual acts while being intoxicated. There is a clear difference.
But to say, it looks like youre declaring the rape culture an insignificant thing - as long as everyone is drunk equally it somehow becomes OK to have sex with everyone?
Just to be safe, get even drunker than them.
I think you’re still responsible for the crimes you commit while drunk/high.
I think the point is then: who is the victim?
It’s hard for two unconscious people to have sex. One of them has to be conscious enough to be able to move. Even if they are drunk they are still responsible for having sex with unconscious person.
It may depend on jurisdiction but usually it’s illegal to have sex with someone unable to consent. I think that if they are drunk but are still consenting (verbally or non-verbally) it’s not considered rape.