| Forum Index > General Forum |
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
What if Person A who has had 2 drinks gives consent for Person B, who is over the legal limit to drive, to have sex with Person A after A is drunk? Would person A be raping person B for inviting B to have sex with A while B was intoxicated but A was not quite there yet? Edit: what if person B sobered up before the sex? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 16 2016 05:59 Fecalfeast wrote: So if you can give consent prior to being intoxicated but not while intoxicated, what is the blood-alcohol level required to cross the threshold from being able to consent to being unable to consent? What if Person A who has had 2 drinks gives consent for Person B, who is over the legal limit to drive, to have sex with Person A after A is drunk? Would person A be raping person B for inviting B to have sex with A while B was intoxicated but A was not quite there yet? Edit: what if person B sobered up before the sex? If one party was unable to consent then someone had sex with them without their consent. If both parties got drunk, sobered up, then consented, then got drunk again, then they had sex with consent. The most popular use of blood alcohol level is for driving; the assumption being that a person who is drunk cannot be trusted with either their safety or the safety of others when intoxicated. Something similar should also be true outside of a car. In other words, if the government literally does not trust you to stop yourself from killing someone, then maybe your ability to make decisions is severely hampered when drunk. If Person A is sober and convinces Person B who is drunk to have sex without consent, then Person A has forced Person B to have sex without consent. If Person B sobers up and then is asked if he wants to have sex, then he is having sex with consent. Its kind of like how a 12 year having sex with a 30 year old is always rape no matter how much the 12 year old wants it. If we believe that the person does not have the ability to give consent at the time, then they are being forced to have sex without consent. Its kind of like how if a boss tells their direct reports to have sex with them or they will lose their job. The employee does not have the ability to properly give consent because the power dynamics makes it so that the employee has no actual agency or power in that dynamic. Its kind of like being held at gunpoint and being told to say "please fuck me" over and over into a recorder. Does not matter how many hours of recordings you force the person to give consent, when they are unable to actually give consent nothing they say will actually be consent. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18487 Posts
What if you're really horny and consent to have sex with a person you would normally not want to have sex with. Was the consent valid? | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 16 2016 06:32 JimmiC wrote: most of what your say here is bull shit and unrelated. a 12 year old isn't a 21 year old who decided he was gonna have some drinks and become 12. And with all your other examples again no choice is involved, no one is talking about a situation where some one was forced to get drunk. Consent can be compromised by more than just alcohol. Age, Coercion, Power Dynamics, Intoxication, etc... It does not matter what removes the ability to consent--lack of consent is lack of consent. And while you might not mind having sex without consent--the 12 year old doesn't mind having sex without consent either. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18487 Posts
On December 16 2016 06:41 opisska wrote: Such a waste having this discussion while KwarK is self-imposedly banned. Or maybe not, depending on his selfcontrol. I don't think you have to worry. I'm sure TM will "oblige" us with a similar question once kwark is back. If not in this thread then in some other one where his crusade is vaguely applicable. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 16 2016 06:39 Acrofales wrote: So you can't consent because your mind is altered. What if you're really horny and consent to have sex with a person you would normally not want to have sex with. Was the consent valid? As far as I know you cannot be given jail time or be fined for being horny while drunk as that is something we don't have a way to measure easily. Blood alcohol, however, is something we have a policy for already; hence we are able to extend it to other aspects of the law. Lots of people can be sued or fired for negligence if they work or perform while drugged. When we start doing the same for being horny or sleepy then the law can adapt and evolve accordingly as well. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote: If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote: Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 16 2016 07:12 JimmiC wrote: Your comparisons are blatant strawman. Being 12 isn't an altered state based on an activity that was done by freewill. But it is a great way to make people who don't think, go while if its like something that is obviously bad it must be bad. So how exactly do you go about having sex to make sure consent by your definition is given? MY guess is you carry around a blood test so you can be sure they are sober then get them to fill out a contract that states not only that they are aware sex will happen but all the foreplay and different positions so on you plan to do. (would hate for them to consent to sex thinking it only meant missionary then have a few drinks and get on top!) I would also make sure this contract is gone through with a them and lawyer to make sure that they understand what is written and implied. Did I nail it? There are two easy ways to do it. Let them know you're interested in them before they're drunk is the first one. If both are already drunk, then you exchange contact and meet up when both are sober and see where that goes. If you are too impatient or cowardly for either, then you simply have to trust they don't charge you with rape. If you don't trust them then you shouldn't fuck them. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thouhastmail
Korea (North)876 Posts
2. As a former writer who studied English literature, I'd recommed you guys to read Lolita - a story of disaster caused by unilateral desire. 3. As an investigator, do not have intercourse whilst intoxicated no matter what your genital says. Seriously, NEVER. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Yamato Cup
IPSL
Artosis vs RiceHat
Kyrie vs Sony
Map Test Tournament
WardiTV Weekly
Ultimate Battle
Rush vs BeSt
Replay Cast
Rogue vs Classic
Patches Events
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
