Jump to content

Drunken Consent


LowPitchFart
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is a burning issue I've had for a while, mainly because it's not consistent with other laws IMO.

NOTE: For all intents and purposes, let's assume the law treats rape for all sexes equally

If a person is drunk and is therefore considered legally incompetent to consent to intercourse, then why is a person who is drunk not considered legally incompetent to make the decision to drive? I realize drunk driving is bad but how can one be charged with a crime if they are considered incompetent in one scenario but not in the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, GHB works better anyway.

It's also more fun and makes you really fucking horny >:3

If you do enough of it you lose all your memory of the event. In that respect, I can see why it's used as a date rape drug. I wouldn't do that, however it could be fun to do to someone with their consent and then film the two of you doing all kinds of crazy kinky shit. This way they won't remember it, and when they see it on film they'd get all embarrassed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a reason most contracts state that the person needs to be 'of sound mind' when they sign it. Per OP's point, they're ah.. both wrong. A person cannot consent while completely shitfaced, so in cases where one person is buzzed and the other person is trashed, the buzzed person initiating sex is seen as the rapist in this scenario because the guy or girl couldn't even stand up or see straight let alone consent to sex. The law treats drunk driving the same way in that if a person who is blitzed trise to drive, not only can they hurt themselves, they'll hurt other people. Being a little buzzed while driving is- also under the law, bad- but if you're driving short distances and you're mostly aware I don't see the big deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person who gets drunk, gets in their car and starts driving is committing a crime. You are at the very least making the roads more dangerous to be on by the mere virtue of you being drunk and driving, even if you don't actually end up crashing into someone and killing them. You pose the risk of hurting others and you personally can't consent to someone else dying in a car crash

a person who gets drunk and is then taken advantage of is being violated, they are not the offender but the victim of a crime

basically: if you are incapacitated in any way and become the victim of a crime, and the offending party is of sound mind, then they are purely in the wrong for choosing to do Bad Things to you

If you are incapacitated in a way that you consented to (for instance, you went out for drinks, you premeditated the action of drugging yourself) and then you proceed to commit a crime you still have to be found liable because the victim's consent is what's important, not the offender

now if someone is incapacitated due to circumstances that are outside their control, for instance being drugged, or this rare disorder, then we would probably ethically consider this person to have extenuating circumstances, and might bend the law a little more in their favour (to a degree dependent on the severity of what they've done)

This is less an inconsistency in how we legally treat drunk people and more an inconsistency in how we legally treat offenders and victims, which makes sense

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think there are other things to take into account too. If they were dating and had sex on a regular basis, it probably wasn't rape. If the girl propositioned the guy for sex like a hundred times prior to that, and he just happens to be real horny, it isn't rape either.

That second example is me rationalizing something that may have happened in the past >.>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ricky said:

Well, I think there are other things to take into account too. If they were dating and had sex on a regular basis, it probably wasn't rape. If the girl propositioned the guy for sex like a hundred times prior to that, and he just happens to be real horny, it isn't rape either.

That second example is me rationalizing something that may have happened in the past >.>

Oh man! I'm really glad to hear this! You know, it really makes me feel better now! I'm no longer a victim of rape! I mean, jeez, it's so obvious now! I wanted sex two weeks prior, but my thoughtful, considerate high school boyfriend remembered that when he sneakily put a condom on and forced himself into me! I thought I was a silly fuddy-duddy who just didn't know what boys wanted, but I sure know now! He just remembered i wanted sex two weeks ago! I was probably sure that I wanted it then! He wasn't wrong! I was right to have never reported him because hey! We were dating! I'm really glad to know that being romantically involved with someone means that my vagina is a constant revolving door because I had sex once! Its so fulfilling to know that my consent doesn't matter! None of it matters! As long as a guy gets laid, right? That's all I'm there for, right?

Thank you, Ricky, for being an upstanding male citizen and reminding girls that they are there for just this purpose. You really should tell more girls that their lovers aren't rapists! It sure is cheaper than therapy! I can now just get over my nightmares now! Thanks for saving me so much time, and money! Its as if the last five years of trauma disappeared! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lemon said:

Thank you, Ricky, for being an upstanding male citizen and reminding girls that they are there for just this purpose. You really should tell more girls that their lovers aren't rapists! It sure is cheaper than therapy! I can now just get over my nightmares now! Thanks for saving me so much time, and money! Its as if the last five years of trauma disappeared! :)

Because you were obviously dating and having sex on a regular basis, so yeah it's really the same thing :V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2016 at 10:00 AM, LowPitchFart said:

If a person is drunk and is therefore considered legally incompetent to consent to intercourse, then why is a person who is drunk not considered legally incompetent to make the decision to drive? I realize drunk driving is bad but how can one be charged with a crime if they are considered incompetent in one scenario but not in the other?

Laws dealing with rape specifically address a victim, as there is a legal victim. Laws dealing with impaired driving do not specifically address any victim, as there is no legal victim.

The reason having sexual intercourse with an intoxicated person is (usually/sometimes) a crime because the victim's intoxication is (usually/sometimes) taken into account. Ability to consent is considered, as consent is possible and required with two persons.

The reason driving while intoxicated is always a crime is because the offender's intoxication is always taken into account, and there is no victim to address. Ability to consent is not considered, as consent is not possible or required with one person.

For example, from NC's General Statutes:

Quote

 

A person is guilty of second-degree forcible rape if the person engages in vaginal intercourse with another person:

  • By force and against the will of the other person; or
  • Who is mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless, and the person performing the act knows or should reasonably know the other person is mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.

 

Notice that there's more than one person involved?

Again, from NC's General Statutes:

Quote

 

A person commits the offense of impaired driving if he drives any vehicle upon any highway, any street, or any public vehicular area within this State:

  • While under the influence of an impairing substance; or
  • After having consumed sufficient alcohol that he has, at any relevant time after the driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. The results of a chemical analysis shall be deemed sufficient evidence to prove a person's alcohol concentration; or
  • With any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance, as listed in G.S. 90-89, or its metabolites in his blood or urine.

 

Notice that there's only one person involved?

If you've ever noticed, crimes with a victim often consider an offender and victim's intent and ability to evaluate a situation. If a person that has committed an impaired driving offense in NC also kills a person while driving (which means a victim becomes involved), it is not murder in the first or second degree but vehicular manslaughter. Just to be clear, though, if you're carrying WMDs in your car and those kill somebody after you crash in NC, that's murder in the first degree despite your intent. Totally unfair, I know.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cingal said:

I think if you give consent whilst drunk, you're still giving consent.

 

If you can be held responsible for killing a person, you can be held responsible for agreeing to have sex too.

When you decide to go out and drink then find yourself driving, you have failed in the responsibility of making suitable transportation arrangements prior to getting intoxicated. There's a reason the term designated driver exists. If you caused an accident because you were drunk that is your fault for not planning properly knowing alcohol would/might be involved in your plans. 

You go out drinking expecting to drive back somehow. Period. If you didn't plan accordingly, that's on you as an adult. I would assume giving consent while drunk would be a spur of the moment unplanned interaction. You go to a party with alcohol expecting to simply drink around some folk. Not to have sex (in most cases). If someone wouldn't ask you to have sex if you were sober, but did so when you weren't thinking properly, they were looking to take advantage of you. Which should be punished.

You could say "well then you shouldn't have gotten drunk at a party of people you don't know". I'd agree on the precaution sense, but that would be 1) victim blaming and 2) saying the perpetrator can't control their actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cingal said:

If you can be held responsible for killing a person, you can be held responsible for agreeing to have sex too.

One usually isn't held entirely responsible for killing a person while DUI/DWI; one is held partially responsible.

In most jurisdictions in the U.S., a person consents to the following four things by completing the process of getting a license:

  • Never to commit any offense while driving in return for the license,
  • Never to take control of a vehicle while intoxicated in return for the license,
  • Never to refuse chemical analysis for intoxication in return for the license, and
  • To understand and abide by any road laws created after receipt of the license in return for the license,

This is called implied consent, and it is very important to know about this.

If you were drunk while taking any of the tests to get your license, you might be able to argue that you had never been capable of consenting to any of those rules. If you weren't drunk during those tests - which is probably the case - you cannot claim you were incapable of consenting to any of those rules. Because of that, consent doesn't matter in any case of DUI/DWI. Neither the offender nor any possible victim has to consent to anything at that moment for a driving offense to be an offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2016 at 0:22 AM, MalletFace said:

A person is guilty of second-degree forcible rape if the person engages in vaginal intercourse with another person:

By force and against the will of the other person; or

Who is mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless, and the person performing the act knows or should reasonably know the other person is mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.

Retards and nuggets need sex, too D:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ricky said:

There's actually a huge market for amputee porn. Midget porn, too. It's weird. :/

What does gay have to do with it though?

 

Quote

A person is guilty of second-degree forcible rape if the person engages in vaginal intercourse with another person:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...