Yes, this gets covered in basic mandatory reporting training. The issue with intoxication is generally the power asymmetry. If there is no asymmetry, there’s less of a problem. It isn’t a hard and fast rule though. If someone says or implies they don’t want to fuck when sober, and you both get drunk and fuck, that’s probably not great. Likewise, someone taking advantage of a body mass asymmetry to remain relatively more sober while consuming the same amount of alcohol is definitely still rape.
Basically, if only one person is drunk, there is a strong presumption of assault. If both people are drunk, there is no such presumption, and you’d generally defer to the nature of their relationship outsode of the drinking. So two complete strangers getting sloshed and fucking is typically safe. Two otherwise platonic friends doing the same thing is more of a grey area and you better be sure you are not misreading the situation. You getting drunk with a friend in the hopes they will make a poor decision they wouldn’t make while sober is rape.
These rules apply in which country?
Lmao why is almost everyone talking about the law? Morals can exist regardless of the law
YES, someone says it. I’m so tired of people bringing up laws when I’m arguing over morals. Let morals change your laws, not the other way around
Whose morals?
I’m curious, if not from the people discussing, what kind of answer were you expecting?
It’s just somewhat surprising to me to see this sentiment so highly upvoted on a discussion board that I typically associate with a younger, perhaps more atheist crowd. “Let morals change our laws” is an argument my boomer, Trumper, anti-lgbt parents make. No thanks.
“Morality” is highly subjective. Not only does every person have their own unique set of morals, most people probably wouldn’t even share the same definition for “morality”. As I see it, it seems too many of our problems are directly attributable to people who believe their own morals are more important than the laws that apply to them.
I would use the word “ethics” instead. Because even though there are many sets of ethics out there, they are usually more well defined and have reasoning behind them. Their justification can’t end with “because a book told me so”.
Maybe it’s just a tomato/tomato situation, but I think the distinction is important. Obviously, I agree that laws exist to be a reflection of certain “values” a society holds, but at the end of the day, the law is the only thing that is well defined (or is intended to be).
So when discussing something like the title of this post, we could talk all day about what we personally believe the answer is, but the legality really is the only objective answer here.
So when discussing something like the title of this post, we could talk all day about what we personally believe the answer is, but the legality really is the only objective answer here.
I agree, we can enjoy a long insightful conversation if we talk about morals… Why do you sound like that shouldn’t be the default?
Edit: wait, how in the duck do you expect a single monolithic legal answer in a question that did not provide a legal jurisdiction?
I never said I expect only one response to OP, this is an asklemmy thread after all, there is no “correct” answer 😀. It is interesting to hear about both the legislation and the personal beliefs amongst everyone here from all over the world, and I welcome that discussion.
But my response was specifically directed at the person who said, “I’m so tired of people bringing up laws”, when laws are really the only objective answer here to be had. I’m fine with everyone sharing their personal beliefs, that leads to interesting discussion, but in general I disagree with the sentiment of “let morals change your laws”. Your own morality the thing you should be most critical of when it comes to changing laws. We should have a discussion to find an ethical basis we can agree on as a society, and use that to drive change to our laws. But we should strive to remove our personal morality from the equation as much as possible.
deleted by creator
Morals changing the laws is exactly how we’re ending up with the right wing BS that is American politics
That’s a poignant philosophical observation:
What I don’t see discussed already here is that it depends on the relationship. Both of you being drunk is not the right time to decide for the first time that you want to do it, but if you’ve already made that decision and now happen to be drunk, whatever.
Consent and being drunk is not about a power imbalance, or at least not completely. It is about both parties’ capabilities to consider the consequences of their actions. Will one or both regret what they’ve done later? How would they tell, if they were either of them drunk?
Regretting a decision has nothing to do with consent. Just because you consented to something does not mean you won’t regret it or vice versa.
Of course, it’s extremely common too lol
deleted by creator
Oh I get it now, you are suffering from muricaistheworlditis.
Why do you think that? I do not see any connection between my comment and you conclusion here.
Yeah, right on spot! :)
Oh and the bullshit in this is that two drunk people should not be able to consent if one drunk person is not able to consent. But go on, get hammered, get laid. Maybe you will die of liver cirrhosis.
deleted by creator
Interesting that you did not say anything about the rest of that comment
deleted by creator
That’s not necessarily true though. A person who really wants to get with someone who has turned them down, goes over when they are vulnerable, knowing they are vulnerable, and plies them with alcohol - that’s still potentially assault. If both parties are drunk, the presumption is not explicitly rape like it would be if there was such a power imbalance, but it isn’t a free pass either.
If your sex partner is intoxicated, it will always raise the stakes, regardless of whether you are also intoxicated. It means you need to be very sure this person wants to sleep with you.
I think you’re misunderstanding what I meant but that may be my fault.
Would “Two people of equal drunkness can do whatever under the same terms and conditions as two non-drunk people” be better?
So since I don’t drink I can’t hookup with drunk girls? Sounds like BS to me.
So since I don’t drink I can’t hookup with drunk girls?
No. Also I hope the women you know are aware that you are not a safe person to be around.
Interesting that you know me so well from one comment. Share your wisdom Internet Wizard :)) How did you become all-knowing?
deleted by creator
Oh yes my intelligence is way below yours, all-knowing internet wizard. You really are laughable. Now go on and tell somebody else they are a rapist. Just to wonder that they might be offended by that.
How did you become all-knowing?
Probably from reading the part in your comment which says:
So since I don’t drink I can’t hookup with drunk girls? Sounds like BS to me.
So you really are all-knowing, Internet Warrior? Show me the powerful way to becoming a keyboard ninja then, please!
deleted by creator
How drunk is too drunk?
This kind of situation is something that is extremely fuzzy to define, but has some easy implications for how people should be taught to handle the situation.
If you are drinking, know your judgement is impacted. The same applies for others.
If you know someone is not normally interested in you, assume they will still feel the same when they sober up and don’t try anything while they are drunk.
If you are interested in a stranger while drunk, know your judgement is impacted and you are likely to misread cues so error on the side of caution. Better to miss an opportunity than to completely misread their intentions or miss signs that they are past their ability to make decisions.
Past that, aim for obvious signs of consent because once again, you are drunk and will probably misread their nonverbal cues.
To be honest the best outcomes came from listening to good friends who recommended for or against hooking up with someone because they were not the one looking to get some.
If your drinking you tend to forget your judgement is impacted.
I don’t forget that it is impacted, but it is hard to tell how impacted it is.
My spouse and I have drunk sex.
If I’m at a party and I’ve been with a person for a few months, have already had sex before, and already talked about doing it after I also see no issue.
If you are going to a party that is explicitly for sex and drugs, you should expect to have drunk sex with strangers. You know know this is going to happen before becoming intoxicated.
If you have talked about maybe making the attempt to date show up so a party on E and corner someone in a walk in pantry, that isn’t fine.
Assuming they are similar levels of drunk, one party didn’t get them into that situation specifically do that without the other one’s knowledge, and they’re both sloppily initiating drunken horny on each other, then sure. But really it would be worthwhile assessing the situation afterwards to see what actual harm/trauma has happened. I say this as someone who has drunkenly initiated things and its either violated a boundary or I’ve regretted it later.
I think the idea of having consent as this hard line, unforgiveable sin thing is probably not a good way of viewing consent. It’s kinda puritanical. (e.g. most jobs are non-consensual in a puritanical sense, I would not be doing most jobs I’ve had unless I needed cash for rent/food, but we also learn to forgive people who help us get jobs we wind up hating. Also consent isn’t just for sex)
The latest episode of the podcast Multiamory, which is focused on polyamory stuff but this episode was more general, actually has a broad discussion on this if you want to check it out. I disagree with a couple of points here and there, but whatever.
I like this take. Thanks for elaborating.
No. Don’t get drunk with people to have sex.
