No such thing as Rape Culture redux

[Derec]

In the scenario you posted they both had non-consensual sexual contact. They are both liable for that decision and face consequences up to and including being convicted of rape, expelled from school, fired from their jobs, and told they have disgraced themselves, their families, and their communities. Being drunk might be a mitigating factor but it's no excuse. The other party being just as drunk might also be a mitigating factor but that's not an excuse, either.

Bottom line: you are responsible for the choices you make and the activities you engage in, whether you're drunk or not. If you choose to have sex with someone too drunk to consent to it, you are responsible for that decision, and it might prove to be a very, very bad one.

Coupling this attitude with a very low threshold of "too drunk to consent" (like somebody merely "appearing drunk" to her friends) results in redefining a great many instances of perfectly consensual sex into non-consensual by fiat. That is not the direction our society should be moving in.

 

[Arctish]

In the scenario you posted they both had non-consensual sexual contact. They are both liable for that decision and face consequences up to and including being convicted of rape, expelled from school, fired from their jobs, and told they have disgraced themselves, their families, and their communities. Being drunk might be a mitigating factor but it's no excuse. The other party being just as drunk might also be a mitigating factor but that's not an excuse, either.

Bottom line: you are responsible for the choices you make and the activities you engage in, whether you're drunk or not. If you choose to have sex with someone too drunk to consent to it, you are responsible for that decision, and it might prove to be a very, very bad one.

Coupling this attitude with a very low threshold of "too drunk to consent" (like somebody merely "appearing drunk" to her friends) results in redefining a great many instances of perfectly consensual sex into non-consensual by fiat. That is not the direction our society should be moving in.

Why not?

Having enough respect for a person you make sure they consent before you f**k them is a good thing. Discouraging drunken recklessness is also a good thing.

Have you ever seen the movie Arthur, starring Dudley Moore? Back in 1981 the drunk driving scene was there for laughs. Nowadays it's not funny at all. People have become aware of the consequences of drunk driving, and no one thinks Arthur is cute or charming when he drunkenly swerves all over the city streets.

I think the same thing is happening with drunken hook-ups. It used to be people thought drunk = golden opportunity for sex. Nowadays people are re-thinking that position. They're starting to think drunk = hands off until sober again.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I feel like my question was answered, but the answer was quite a doozy.

 

[doubtingt]

In the scenario you posted they both had non-consensual sexual contact. They are both liable for that decision and face consequences up to and including being convicted of rape, expelled from school, fired from their jobs, and told they have disgraced themselves, their families, and their communities. Being drunk might be a mitigating factor but it's no excuse. The other party being just as drunk might also be a mitigating factor but that's not an excuse, either.

Bottom line: you are responsible for the choices you make and the activities you engage in, whether you're drunk or not. If you choose to have sex with someone too drunk to consent to it, you are responsible for that decision, and it might prove to be a very, very bad one.

Coupling this attitude with a very low threshold of "too drunk to consent" (like somebody merely "appearing drunk" to her friends) results in redefining a great many instances of perfectly consensual sex into non-consensual by fiat. That is not the direction our society should be moving in.

Why not?

Having enough respect for a person you make sure they consent before you f**k them is a good thing. Discouraging drunken recklessness is also a good thing.

Have you ever seen the movie Arthur, starring Dudley Moore? Back in 1981 the drunk driving scene was there for laughs. Nowadays it's not funny at all. People have become aware of the consequences of drunk driving, and no one thinks Arthur is cute or charming when he drunkenly swerves all over the city streets.

Discourage anything you want. Discouraging all alcohol consumption "is a good thing", but imprisoning people for it is fascism. Have you ever heard of prohibition? Its supporters made arguments very similar to yours and others trying to outlaw sex while intoxicated. Happily, society rejected that nonsense.

I think the same thing is happening with drunken hook-ups. It used to be people thought drunk = golden opportunity for sex. Nowadays people are re-thinking that position. They're starting to think drunk = hands off until sober again.

Its a very tiny % of people that support the notion that intoxicated sex is even a moral transgression let alone anything that should be illegal, and then most of those people still have intoxicated sex anyway, because most people drink enough that the odds are quite high of sex and drinking to co-occur (not even counting all the other drug use). At nearly every single adult party and in most bars and many restaurants in every town on every night there are numerous people getting intoxicated that will have sex that night. None of the their friends think anything of it or judge either party the next day, unless the hook up is with someone they don't generally approve of. According to the "too drunk to consent" definition of rape, even sex with a husband is just as much an act of "rape" as with a stranger, if the women is intoxicated. Yet, even if their friend is severely wasted and incoherent, few people would feel an obligation to intervene with a sexual flirtation from a husband, boyfriend, or even close friend with whom the women has previously had sex. This reveals almost no one outside of extremist activists buy the notion that intoxication nullifies consent and therefore makes any sex act rape (which is what the "too drunk to consent" principle entails. There is no chance of this view changing to anything remotely close to how DUI is viewed, because the two acts are not remotely similar. To harm someone while DUI, there is no need to do anything else to deliberately harm others. Merely being DUI is sufficient to cause the harm by accident. To harm someone while having sex under the influence, you need to choose to act in immoral ways for which intoxication is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition. The person's intoxication might make it easier to do these immoral things to the person, but the immorality lies in doing those things and not in whether you did them when it was easier to get away with it. IOW, you need to do deliberately do things to a person that harms them, and few people do or ever will buy the notion that having sex with someone you are attracted to is harmful if you happen to be anything but sober and in an ideally rational state, because they rationally reject the unscientific notion that a person has no will or intent unless they are in an ideal rational state (which is the inherent assumption of any "too drunk to consent" that does not specify that "too drunk" means near unconsciousness and .iteral inability to voice anything that would indicate either consent or refusal (which is not remotely the same as discounting clear signs of consent to a sex act they are aware is occurring just because those indicators are given while intoxicated).

 

[Arctish]

In the scenario you posted they both had non-consensual sexual contact. They are both liable for that decision and face consequences up to and including being convicted of rape, expelled from school, fired from their jobs, and told they have disgraced themselves, their families, and their communities. Being drunk might be a mitigating factor but it's no excuse. The other party being just as drunk might also be a mitigating factor but that's not an excuse, either.

Bottom line: you are responsible for the choices you make and the activities you engage in, whether you're drunk or not. If you choose to have sex with someone too drunk to consent to it, you are responsible for that decision, and it might prove to be a very, very bad one.

Coupling this attitude with a very low threshold of "too drunk to consent" (like somebody merely "appearing drunk" to her friends) results in redefining a great many instances of perfectly consensual sex into non-consensual by fiat. That is not the direction our society should be moving in.

Why not?

Having enough respect for a person you make sure they consent before you f**k them is a good thing. Discouraging drunken recklessness is also a good thing.

Have you ever seen the movie Arthur, starring Dudley Moore? Back in 1981 the drunk driving scene was there for laughs. Nowadays it's not funny at all. People have become aware of the consequences of drunk driving, and no one thinks Arthur is cute or charming when he drunkenly swerves all over the city streets.

Discourage anything you want. Discouraging all alcohol consumption "is a good thing", but imprisoning people for it is fascism. Have you ever heard of prohibition? Its supporters made arguments very similar to yours and others trying to outlaw sex while intoxicated. Happily, society rejected that nonsense.

I think the same thing is happening with drunken hook-ups. It used to be people thought drunk = golden opportunity for sex. Nowadays people are re-thinking that position. They're starting to think drunk = hands off until sober again.

Its a very tiny % of people that support the notion that intoxicated sex is even a moral transgression let alone anything that should be illegal, and then most of those people still have intoxicated sex anyway, because most people drink enough that the odds are quite high of sex and drinking to co-occur (not even counting all the other drug use). At nearly every single adult party and in most bars and many restaurants in every town on every night there are numerous people getting intoxicated that will have sex that night. None of the their friends think anything of it or judge either party the next day, unless the hook up is with someone they don't generally approve of. According to the "too drunk to consent" definition of rape, even sex with a husband is just as much an act of "rape" as with a stranger, if the women is intoxicated. Yet, even if their friend is severely wasted and incoherent, few people would feel an obligation to intervene with a sexual flirtation from a husband, boyfriend, or even close friend with whom the women has previously had sex.

People in an established relationship can have a reasonable expectation of consent. People engaged in drunken hook-ups don't.

This reveals almost no one outside of extremist activists buy the notion that intoxication nullifies consent and therefore makes any sex act rape (which is what the "too drunk to consent" principle entails. There is no chance of this view changing to anything remotely close to how DUI is viewed, because the two acts are not remotely similar. To harm someone while DUI, there is no need to do anything else to deliberately harm others. Merely being DUI is sufficient to cause the harm by accident. To harm someone while having sex under the influence, you need to choose to act in immoral ways for which intoxication is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition. The person's intoxication might make it easier to do these immoral things to the person, but the immorality lies in doing those things and not in whether you did them when it was easier to get away with it. IOW, you need to do deliberately do things to a person that harms them, and few people do or ever will buy the notion that having sex with someone you are attracted to is harmful if you happen to be anything but sober and in an ideally rational state, because they rationally reject the unscientific notion that a person has no will or intent unless they are in an ideal rational state (which is the inherent assumption of any "too drunk to consent" that does not specify that "too drunk" means near unconsciousness and .iteral inability to voice anything that would indicate either consent or refusal (which is not remotely the same as discounting clear signs of consent to a sex act they are aware is occurring just because those indicators are given while intoxicated).

You might have a desire for consent, and might mistake drunken extrovertism for it, but if you act as though you have consent when in reality you don't, you'll be taking a risk. The drunk might not be happy about being sexually molested by a stranger when the effects of the alcohol wear off, and then what? You had sexual contact with someone without their consent. You made a choice, and you are responsible for the outcome.


BTW, "too drunk to consent to sex" doesn't mean near unconsciousness or the literal "inability to voice anything that would indicate either consent or refusal". It means too drunk to make rational, informed decisions. It's the same level of intoxication as being "too drunk to sign a mortgage", "too drunk to enlist in the Navy", or "too drunk to donate a kidney".

 

[Sabine Grant]

By Arctish :BTW, "too drunk to consent to sex" doesn't mean near unconsciousness or the literal "inability to voice anything that would indicate either consent or refusal". It means too drunk to make rational, informed decisions. It's the same level of intoxication as being "too drunk to sign a mortgage", "too drunk to enlist in the Navy", or "too drunk to donate a kidney".

IMO an astute observation. We certainly do not remain passive to a drunk individual signing a legal document either.

And does anyone want to see a drunk Judge presiding in a court of Law? A drunk prosecutor? A drunk defense attorney? I mean there is a great variety of "drunk" situations where society reacts with acknowledging that the drunk parties are not "clear of mind" and that without the drunk party needing to be unconscious or "inability to voice anything which would indicate either consent or refusal".

Is it that difficult to evaluate someone is drunk? Do they need to be unconscious or unable to voice anything which would indicate either consent or refusal? Well, I hope not...otherwise cops would have been wasting their time pulling over drunk drivers.

Maybe it is just me...but what is so appealing about engaging in any kind of physical intimacy with a drunk person? There you have an individual who will sound like a bumbling idiot, whose motor coordination is off, ambulation unstable and oh....the breath! Maybe one has to be drunk to find it appealing? That might explain all the mutually drunk hook ups?

 

[Derec]

IMO an astute observation. We certainly do not remain passive to a drunk individual signing a legal document either.

Which would be more akin to getting married than just having sex. We let drunks purchase food. We even let them get a cab ride home without charging the cabbie with kidnapping and theft. So why should drunk people having sex be considered as "rapists"?

And does anyone want to see a drunk Judge presiding in a court of Law? A drunk prosecutor? A drunk defense attorney?

So now sex should be subject to the same standards as professional settings? That is really ridiculous.

I mean there is a great variety of "drunk" situations where society reacts with acknowledging that the drunk parties are not "clear of mind" and that without the drunk party needing to be unconscious or "inability to voice anything which would indicate either consent or refusal".

Yes, but being a judge, driving heavy machinery or getting a mortgage is very different than sex and should not be subject to the same strict rules.

Is it that difficult to evaluate someone is drunk? Do they need to be unconscious or unable to voice anything which would indicate either consent or refusal? Well, I hope not...otherwise cops would have been wasting their time pulling over drunk drivers.

Different activities have different levels of acceptable drunkenness. We set DUI limits as we do not because people above those limits (say 0.08%) are considered as incapable to consent to drive a vehicle but because of reduction of fine motor control and reaction times than can cause an accident. To use the same standard to find that everybody above it is incapable to consent to sex is just plain stupid.

Maybe it is just me...but what is so appealing about engaging in any kind of physical intimacy with a drunk person? There you have an individual who will sound like a bumbling idiot, whose motor coordination is off, ambulation unstable and oh....the breath! Maybe one has to be drunk to find it appealing? That might explain all the mutually drunk hook ups?

You just answered your own question!

 

[Derec]

People in an established relationship can have a reasonable expectation of consent. People engaged in drunken hook-ups don't.

That doesn't mean that they are incapable to consent to sex either.

You might have a desire for consent, and might mistake drunken extrovertism for it, but if you act as though you have consent when in reality you don't, you'll be taking a risk. The drunk might not be happy about being sexually molested by a stranger when the effects of the alcohol wear off, and then what? You had sexual contact with someone without their consent. You made a choice, and you are responsible for the outcome.

If a drunk person consents to sex that is consent. This consent cannot be withdrawn retroactively just because the person regrets the consensual encounter.

BTW, "too drunk to consent to sex" doesn't mean near unconsciousness or the literal "inability to voice anything that would indicate either consent or refusal". It means too drunk to make rational, informed decisions. It's the same level of intoxication as being "too drunk to sign a mortgage", "too drunk to enlist in the Navy", or "too drunk to donate a kidney".

Blatantly ridiculous.

 

[RavenSky]

Given that sex can result in pregnancy and/or STD; and rape can result in life-long emotional issues - I rather think sex should be considered more important than grocery shopping.

 

[Derec]

Having enough respect for a person you make sure they consent before you f**k them is a good thing. Discouraging drunken recklessness is also a good thing.

Being drunk and consenting are not mutually exclusive. Also you have yet to account for the blatant double standard of treating the male party to drunken hookups as a "rapist" and the female party as a "victim".

Have you ever seen the movie Arthur, starring Dudley Moore? Back in 1981 the drunk driving scene was there for laughs. Nowadays it's not funny at all. People have become aware of the consequences of drunk driving, and no one thinks Arthur is cute or charming when he drunkenly swerves all over the city streets.

We still don't consider a drunk driver as incapable of consenting to drive. Just reckless and the other people have not consented to be subjected to his reckless behavior.
But in case of sex you want drunk people to be declared as incapable to consent and automatically victims (at least if female), no matter how enthusiastically they engaged in sex. That is the exact opposite situation than DUI where drunk drivers are considered capable to consent to the behavior they did and we do not consider them victims.
As far as movies, I really don't think too many people will think of lead characters in "Knocked Up" as rapists in 30 years. Do you?

I think the same thing is happening with drunken hook-ups. It used to be people thought drunk = golden opportunity for sex. Nowadays people are re-thinking that position. They're starting to think drunk = hands off until sober again.

Depends on the level of drunkenness and the delta between the prospective partners. However, nobody (except you maybe) is thinking - I would not drive a car in my state, I would not go to work in my state, I would not sign a mortgage in my state, so I must be too drunk to have sex or seek out similarly drunk potential partners. That way lies lunacy. Otherwise you may as well imprison all bar and club owners and employees as accessories to serial rape.

- - - Updated - - -

Given that sex can result in pregnancy and/or STD; and rape can result in life-long emotional issues - I rather think sex should be considered more important than grocery shopping.

Do you think parties to a consensual drunken hookup should be treated as rapists? That is the whole issue here. Not whether it's a good idea but whether even a moderate level of inebriation renders people utterly incapable to consent to sexual activity.

 

[RavenSky]

I think people who are drunk cannot give rational conscious consent, and without consent it is rape. But you already knew that.

Frankly, though, it never ceases to amaze me how many of you defend fucking drunk strangers and vehemently fight against getting clear affirmative consent. It always makes me wonder why.

 

[Derec]

I think people who are drunk cannot give rational conscious consent, and without consent it is rape. But you already knew that.

And I am still boggled by this attitude. Your world contains millions of rapists that are also rape victims - for the exactly same sex act!

Frankly, though, it never ceases to amaze me how many of you defend fucking drunk strangers and vehemently fight against getting clear affirmative consent. It always makes me wonder why.

Getting "clear affirmative consent" can even be non-verbal so it certainly doesn't require sobriety.

 

[RavenSky]

Frankly, though, it never ceases to amaze me how many of you defend fucking drunk strangers and vehemently fight against getting clear affirmative consent. It always makes me wonder why.

Getting "clear affirmative consent" can even be non-verbal so it certainly doesn't require sobriety.

it absolutely does require sobriety

 

[Derec]

it absolutely does require sobriety

I wonder if you would hold the same position if colleges started expelling female students for having sex with drunk males?

But be it gander or goose your and Arktish's attitude is completely divorced from reality.

 

[RavenSky]

it absolutely does require sobriety

I wonder if you would hold the same position if colleges started expelling female students for having sex with drunk males?

But be it gander or goose your and Arktish's attitude is completely divorced from reality.

It is your <Edit> attitude towards women that is and always has been clearly divorced from reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Justice Benjamin Cardozo said we have the right to consent to our own healthcare, but there were some caveats. You have to be of adult years and… what?

Of sound mind.

If you are not of sound mind you cannot make decisions about your healthcare.

http://cme4life.com/patient-consent-drunk-really-matter/

An interesting variation on whether a drunk can consent. The answer is, again, no.

 

[Derec]

It is your fucked up attitude towards women that is and always has been clearly divorced from reality.

No, I think the rules should be the same for men and women. It's the feminsists and colleges that think women are automatically victims and men automatically rapists in cases of mutually drunken consensual hookups.

An interesting variation on whether a drunk can consent. The answer is, again, no.

Medical procedures != sex. This is getting ridiculous. One has to fill out all sorts of forms for medical procedures, should similar forms be required for sex as well?
I think you would find the below a pretty good idea:

 

[RavenSky]

I think the rules should be the same for men and women.

. No you don't.

 

[Derec]

I think the rules should be the same for men and women.

. No you don't.

Name me one instance where I advocated different rules for men and women.

 

[Arctish]

it absolutely does require sobriety

I wonder if you would hold the same position if colleges started expelling female students for having sex with drunk males?

But be it gander or goose your and Arktish's attitude is completely divorced from reality.

No. Our position is based on the reality of sexual contact being a non-trivial event, and consent being the only thing that separates it from rape.

I don't have time tonight to go into detail, but I wanted to post this:

The Hard Truth About Girl-on-Guy Rape

Charlie woke up to a blank-faced girl straddling him. He had been disrobed, was erect, and as her hips began to shift in short, quick movements, he realized he was inside of her. Frozen with disbelief, Charlie laid still. He faked climaxing, hoping it would prompt her to dismount and leave the room. Eventually she did, but only after he rolled to his side and pretended to sleep.

The next morning Charlie wasn’t sure what to think. Had an underclassman he knew only by name really entered his dorm room and had her way with him as he slept? It all seemed so absurd, like the makings of an awkward wet dream. Except Charlie had zero interest in this girl. He had never spoken to her, kissed her or even tried to catch her eye. He felt neither lucky nor flattered, just extremely perturbed.

“The most traumatic part was the complete assumption of consent,” he tells me nearly two decades later. “I was physically revolted by the experience. It just felt so shockingly wrong.”.....


.....“I didn’t call it rape at the time because it didn’t even occur to me that I could be raped,” says Ben, who agreed to speak with me over Skype. ”All I knew was that what happened to me was not ok. It was a horrifying situation.”

Ben was sexually assaulted by an ex-girlfriend three years ago after she broke into his home in the middle of the night. Like Charlie, he woke up to his intruder sitting on top of him, his penis stiff and penetrating her.

“It was a uniquely violating experience because between morning wood and what she was doing to me, I couldn’t keep myself from getting hard,” he says. “I just felt completely helpless.”.....

.....Ben’s ex also threatened to tell the authorities that he had raped her if he dared tell anyone about what had happened, a variation on an intimidation tactic commonly associated with male-on-female rape. Victims are often told, “No one will believe you.” However, only female abusers can say, “Not only won’t anyone believe you, but they’ll believe me because I am a woman. There’s proof that we had a sexual encounter, and I can use that against you.”

What these men have in common with the women under discussion in this thread and others is that there was no consent, no reasonable expectation of consent, and the fact they didn't say "no" is irrelevant. They didn't say "yes", and that's what matters. It wouldn't have made any difference if they had been drunk. It wouldn't have made any difference if their assailants were drunk. They did not consent to sex, so sexual contact with them should not have happened. They were raped.

The women who assaulted those men are rapists. They should be punished the same as any other rapists who do those things to others without their consent. Sauce for the goose is good for the gander.

If we all agree that female rapists should be treated the same way as male rapists (and I'm sure we all do), let's not go over this ground again. Let's concentrate on the issue of consent, which is where we actually disagree.

So, what is consent and how do you know you have it?

 

[EricK]

Whenever I read threads like this I always wonder if people are really talking about the same things as each other. When one person says "drunken hook-up" do they really have the same picture in their mind of what that entails as the person they are talking to?

Here's a scenario which is no doubt played out thousands of times every weekend: A guy is in a bar drinking with his friends. He sees a woman he fancies. He has had enough to drink to feel brave enough to go and talk to her - this, after all, is one of the reasons he goes out drinking with his friends. The woman finds him quite attractive too, and she has had enough to drink to overcome whatever inhibitions she might normally have - that, after all, is one of the reasons she goes out drinking with her friends. One thing leads to another and they end up back at his place. They might be too drunk to drive, but they're sober enough to get each other's motor running, if you get my drift. The next morning either or both of them might (or might not) regret what they did, but if they do, the question they will ask themselves is not "What did I do last night?" but "Why did I do that?"

Here's another scenario, which probably also happens every weekend, but I hope far less frequently than the first: A guy is in a bar around closing time. He eyes up the women who are still there. One is struggling to even stay seated on her bar stool. He goes up to talk to her, not that she is very capable of talking at this point. Again one thing leads to another and they end up back at his place. The next morning she has no idea where she is or what she did the previous night.

Now either of those might be described as a "drunken hook-up". But I reckon if you polled the population very few would consider the first one to be rape, or anything close to it - even if they disapproved of the morality of the actions (which these days few would). Whereas the results of the poll would be very different if you asked about the second scenario.