Jump to content

Menu

Exploring Hypothetical TeA/Consent Scenario and Curious


Ginevra
 Share

Recommended Posts

I see what you're saying, but I think that being very careful of one's partner's preferences/feelings/desires/consent is very sex-positive, even when practically speaking it means you end up with less sex.  If you are too wasted to discern your partner(s)'s preferences/feelings/desires/consent, you're too wasted for sex - from a moral perspective, from an emotional perspective, as well as potentially from a legal perspective.  And generally speaking, if you are on the right side of things morally, you are considerably less likely to find yourself on the wrong side of things legally.

 

I agree with you, but so many people* seem to have the attitude that:

 

- women have a right to get black-out drunk if they want but should expect no negative consequences because the boys are supposed to be looking out for them.

 

- being sex-positive means people can have sex whenever and with whomever they want.

 

- one-night stands are fun and safe if safe®-sex precautions are taken.

 

- sex is for fun and entertainment; emotional ties are not needed or even necessarily desirable.

 

*I'm not talking about this thread, but I gather this from other threads here, people I know, other forums.  TV/Movies may give that message. 

 

I don't see so much about caring for one's partner's preferences, etc.  It is only with a long-term (however you define long term), truly caring (loving, affectionate) relationship that you are going to get that.  Not a one-night-stand after a night of clubbing.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I agree with you, but in the scenario from the novel, these three had previously met up for consentual tea for three, the day before. So, it's not insane to imagine that when she was coherant and indicating she was okay with a repeat, it would have followed she would not be expected to regret it when her consciousness flagged during the proceedings. IOW, it's certainly easy to see how the frat boys, having done this before sober, and with her having begun the evening coherant, and also with their own judgement on the ropes, could fail to go, "well, now. It seems our friend is no longer involved in the fun so I guess we'll pick this up at another time." I'm not saying it is impossible for the frat boys to draw that conclusion, but I can see why this might ocurr to them too late.

 

What they did yesterday is neither here nor there.  

The fact that someone wanted a drink of tea yesterday has no bearing on whether they want a drink of tea today.  

If you know them well, you can make a better predication as to whether they would like tea today, though you cannot be sure.  The less well you know them, the less accurate your prediction will be, and thus the more important it is to be sure that they are consenting.  

I had a turkey wrap for lunch yesterday, but I don't want one for lunch today.

If someone you don't know well had sex with you yesterday it has no bearing on whether they are willing to consent to sex today.  If you know them well, you can make a fairly accurate prediction.  The less well you know them, the less accurate your prediction will be.

The fact that they are intoxicated beyond the point of being able to communicate means they are unable to give consent.  Period.

The fact that you (the frat boy) are intoxicated means that you are less able to discern whether they can give consent, making it more important that you do the right thing and wait until such time as you can be sure that they can and do enthusiastically consent and enjoy.

 

The morally right thing to do is to not have sex with people who can't consent.  People who are very wasted cannot consent, whether conscious or not.

That should be taken into consideration before consuming enough alcohol that your judgement is impaired.

 

This means you might choose not to have sex when the other person would have actually been ok with it.  So be it.  In the long run, respect for your partner, and an abundance of caution about it, is better for each other and for your relationship together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, but so many people* seem to have the attitude that:

 

- women have a right to get black-out drunk if they want but should expect no negative consequences because the boys are supposed to be looking out for them.

 

- being sex-positive means people can have sex whenever and with whomever they want.

 

- one-night stands are fun and safe if safe®-sex precautions are taken.

 

- sex is for fun and entertainment; emotional ties are not needed or even necessarily desirable.

 

*I'm not talking about this thread, but I gather this from other threads here, people I know, other forums.  TV/Movies may give that message. 

 

I don't see so much about caring for one's partner's preferences, etc.  It is only with a long-term (however you define long term), truly caring (loving, affectionate) relationship that you are going to get that.  Not a one-night-stand after a night of clubbing.

  • "women have a right to get black-out drunk if they want but should expect no negative consequences because the boys are supposed to be looking out for them."

    If drunk women experience negative consequences, chances are the moral/legal blame lies at the feet of the person who takes advantage of them.  However, that is in no way a guarantee that negative consequences will not occur if one gets black-out drunk.  It just means that should they occur, the blame/liability does not lie with the drunk person.  

  • being sex-positive means people can have sex whenever and with whomever they want.

    Clearly, that doesn't work, as consent is a huge part of the idea of being sex-positive.

  • one-night stands are fun and safe if safe®-sex precautions are taken.

    That they may be, for some people, in some circumstances.  But it doesn't negate the need for getting the consent of the actual person you are actually having sex with.

  • sex is for fun and entertainment; emotional ties are not needed or even necessarily desirable.

    There are no doubt people who feel this way.  However, you can't assume a stranger-partner feels this way, especially if they are intoxicated.  It doesn't eliminate the need for consent.

I think that "consent" is an easy-to-get-across message/guideline, that, if take to logical conclusions, can incorporate much of the nuance that is lacking in pop culture's lens on sex.  It does sometimes lead to conclusions that initially seem extreme - like a general rule of not having sex with people when you and/or they are wasted - but up on closer examination, I think these conclusions are actually quite sensible and hold up well. Edited by justasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

- one-night stands are fun and safe if safe®-sex precautions are taken.

 

- sex is for fun and entertainment; emotional ties are not needed or even necessarily desirable.

 

This is the real problem, not drinking alcohol. Having TeA while intoxicated is only a problem outside the context of a committed relationship.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the real problem, not drinking alcohol. Having TeA while intoxicated is only a problem outside the context of a committed relationship.

I don't think this is quite true.

I think that while the balance is different, in a committed relationship there is still a responsibility to make sure your partner is enjoying what is going on (or at least is ok with it), and at some point alcohol consumption impairs this ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't see that being sex-positive has much bearing on this situation. I mean, being sex-positive or believing that sex without greater commitment is positive (because those are totally different things - even if there is an overlap of people who believe in both) has no bearing on sex without consent. Advocates of being sex-positive wouldn't say that sex without consent is okay.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't see that being sex-positive has much bearing on this situation. I mean, being sex-positive or believing that sex without greater commitment is positive (because those are totally different things - even if there is an overlap of people who believe in both) has no bearing on sex without consent. Advocates of being sex-positive wouldn't say that sex without consent is okay.

That's not what I was trying to say, at all. No one is saying sex positive means no consent.

 

I was responding to the idea that if someone regrets their sexual encounter the next day, then their partner was morally or ethically guilty of rape -- that a person should be able to discern if this future regret is going to happen before they engage in sex. My point was, in trying to figure that out, you'd have to know an awful lot about the person, and both parties would have to be unimpaired in their thinking and judgement. They'd have to have excellent communication. So, it would rule out a one-night stand, just to name one situation. And, it would nullify the idea that active participation means everything will be fine in the morning.

 

But, from the definitions I've heard, saying one should not have one night stands, sex with relative strangers or impaired sexual encounters would not be considered sex positive.

 

I honestly think that a requirement to reasonbly anticipate future regret in order to have tea with said person kinda rules out most if not all the tea drinking I knew of when I hung out with drunk people at parties.

 

So, I fall back to -- don't have sex when drunk. Don't have sex with people you don't know. Certainly don't combine those two things.

Edited by JodiSue
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I was trying to say, at all. No one is saying sex positive means no consent.

 

I was responding to the idea that if someone regrets their sexual encounter the next day, then their partner was morally or ethically guilty of rape -- that a person should be able to discern if this future regret will going to happen before they engage in sex. My point was, in trying to figure that out, you'd have to know an awful lot about the person, and both parties would have to be unimpaired in their thinking and judgement. They'd have to be excellent communication So, it would rule out a one-night stand, just to name one situation. And, it would nullify the idea that active participation means everything will be fine in the morning.

 

But, from the definitions I've heard, saying one should not have one night stands, sex with relative strangers or impaired sexual encounters would not be considered sex positive.

 

I honestly think that a requirement to reasonbly anticipate future regret in order to have tea with said person kinda rules out most if not all the tea drinking I knew of when I hung out with drunk people at parties.

 

So, I fall back to -- don't have sex when drunk. Don't have sex with people you don't know. Certainly don't combine those two things.

 

I think about this too.  I bet this sort of stuff happens often and in a lot of situations the person might regret it or feel as if someone was being too forceful/coercive, but not feel as if a rape occurred or not call it that.  So is it a matter of individual definition or was there some sort of major difference with the scenario that was considered rape? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it is similar to cases of someone getting drunk and they kill someone with their car.  They are often not treated as harshly.  It's said not to be premeditated and that they made bad decisions based in part on their altered state.  To that I say it's BS.  You get piss drunk without a plan for how you are getting home you have premeditated possibly hurting or killing someone.  So yes the onus is on anyone to not get piss drunk in a situation where they could hurt someone. 

 

Yes.  If you are drunk, it is your fault.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, but so many people* seem to have the attitude that:

 

- women have a right to get black-out drunk if they want but should expect no negative consequences because the boys are supposed to be looking out for them.

 

- being sex-positive means people can have sex whenever and with whomever they want.

 

- one-night stands are fun and safe if safe®-sex precautions are taken.

 

- sex is for fun and entertainment; emotional ties are not needed or even necessarily desirable.

 

*I'm not talking about this thread, but I gather this from other threads here, people I know, other forums.  TV/Movies may give that message. 

 

I don't see so much about caring for one's partner's preferences, etc.  It is only with a long-term (however you define long term), truly caring (loving, affectionate) relationship that you are going to get that.  Not a one-night-stand after a night of clubbing.  

 

 

This sums things up quite nicely as far as how I see the world, and how I viewed the world in my early 20's when I was collecting my wild oats, as it were. With the exception that women did not have any right over men regarding getting drunk, I frankly had more rules for myself about when to get drunk than I did for when to have sex (which was invariably fun and safe one night stand circumstances).

 

Part of it, I suppose, was naivete. Part of it was that I trusted my friends regardless of gender to look out for me, and apparently had good taste in both friends and hook-up partners. All of the latter were individuals I either knew through the SCA, knew through the Navy (fellow sailors), or knew through my religious community (Pagan). Even the ones whose real/full names I didn't know, I could have found out with some digging had it been necessary. I never actually hooked up with someone I met at a club while drunk. Several I met at an SCA event or in the rec lounge playing D&D though.

 

I have not seen statistics on what percentages of casual sexual encounters with acquaintances end in rape vs. a good time, let alone seen comparisons of date-rape statistics that compare casual (hook-up, no long term relationship with the person) sexual assaults/rapes with those that take place within the context of a long term committed relationship.

 

In the current climate in which weekend-binge alcoholism is so prevalent, and given how many people I have encountered in my work who are in trouble with the law because they do things while intoxicated that are out of character when they are sober, my advice to any young person now would be that getting drunk should be a very rare event, and sex does not mix well with alcohol--legal repercussions of what one might do while blacked out aside, if you don't have fun having sex sober, you probably shouldn't be having sex. But the legal repercussions of blackout behavior are not insignificant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, but so many people* seem to have the attitude that:

 

- women have a right to get black-out drunk if they want but should expect no negative consequences because the boys are supposed to be looking out for them.

 

- being sex-positive means people can have sex whenever and with whomever they want.

 

- one-night stands are fun and safe if safe®-sex precautions are taken.

 

- sex is for fun and entertainment; emotional ties are not needed or even necessarily desirable.

 

*I'm not talking about this thread, but I gather this from other threads here, people I know, other forums.  TV/Movies may give that message. 

 

I don't see so much about caring for one's partner's preferences, etc.  It is only with a long-term (however you define long term), truly caring (loving, affectionate) relationship that you are going to get that.  Not a one-night-stand after a night of clubbing.  

 

 

Yeah none of that was my thing.  I preferred committed relationships.  And yes I worried about anything from diseases to hurt feelings.  I don't know what the general attitude is anymore.  I don't care what other people do in that department, but I'm not particularly turned on by the thought of being with someone who is into that. 

 

And I'm an atheist who had parents who were relatively liberal in that department.  I'm not sure where my feelings on the matter come from exactly. 

 

I am so torn on the "get black out drunk" and expect good things to happen thing.  A crime is a crime, but what would people think if I carried wads of cash around and laid it on a table at a party and then got piss drunk and woke up to find it gone?  Someone still stole the money, but people would think I was insane for insisting it should not have happened.  I'm not trying to diminish what some people go through in this department.  I'm kinda baffled at this "epidemic" because it was never my experience.  Sure I encountered some less than savory guys, but I encountered far more reasonable guys than not.  They may have liked the prospect of casual sex, but doesn't mean they insist on taking it whenever they wanted it either. 

 

Maybe stuff has gotten uglier or I live under a rock. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they did yesterday is neither here nor there.

The fact that someone wanted a drink of tea yesterday has no bearing on whether they want a drink of tea today.

If you know them well, you can make a better predication as to whether they would like tea today, though you cannot be sure. The less well you know them, the less accurate your prediction will be, and thus the more important it is to be sure that they are consenting.

I had a turkey wrap for lunch yesterday, but I don't want one for lunch today.

If someone you don't know well had sex with you yesterday it has no bearing on whether they are willing to consent to sex today. If you know them well, you can make a fairly accurate prediction. The less well you know them, the less accurate your prediction will be.

The fact that they are intoxicated beyond the point of being able to communicate means they are unable to give consent. Period.

The fact that you (the frat boy) are intoxicated means that you are less able to discern whether they can give consent, making it more important that you do the right thing and wait until such time as you can be sure that they can and do enthusiastically consent and enjoy.

 

The morally right thing to do is to not have sex with people who can't consent. People who are very wasted cannot consent, whether conscious or not.

That should be taken into consideration before consuming enough alcohol that your judgement is impaired.

 

This means you might choose not to have sex when the other person would have actually been ok with it. So be it. In the long run, respect for your partner, and an abundance of caution about it, is better for each other and for your relationship together.

I'm not arguing that because they did it yesterday, surely it is what was desired today. What I'm saying is, it is no surprise when what happened yesterday appears to be repeating today; why would it be very likely the boys would keep monitoring her properly for consent? I'm not suggesting they should have simply carried on. I'm saying human nature is to assume patterns from before as reliable now as well. If a "wild" young co-ed gave you and your friend green lights on this activity yesterday, and today appeared to be giving you and your friend green lights as the same scene began to unfold, but then she passed out at some point while the event was going on, it is reasonable for the males to assume that she will be equally accepting of this event as the event yesterday.

 

Having said that, I do see the value in doing what Farrar said upthread: drilling it into the brains of the co-ed set that if you can't be certain consent is given and ongoing, retreat. Full stop. Don't be stupid. But, because I am pondering something from a completed event standpoint (well, from a work of fiction, but nevermind that), I'm asking questions from that vantage point. Say it already happened. Are these boys guilty of rape? I do think there's some definite grey area there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing that because they did it yesterday, surely it is what was desired today. What I'm saying is, it is no surprise when what happened yesterday appears to be repeating today; why would it be very likely the boys would keep monitoring her properly for consent? I'm not suggesting they should have simply carried on. I'm saying human nature is to assume patterns from before as reliable now as well. If a "wild" young co-ed gave you and your friend green lights on this activity yesterday, and today appeared to be giving you and your friend green lights as the same scene began to unfold, but then she passed out at some point while the event was going on, it is reasonable for the males to assume that she will be equally accepting of this event as the event yesterday.

 

Having said that, I do see the value in doing what Farrar said upthread: drilling it into the brains of the co-ed set that if you can't be certain consent is given and ongoing, retreat. Full stop. Don't be stupid. But, because I am pondering something from a completed event standpoint (well, from a work of fiction, but nevermind that), I'm asking questions from that vantage point. Say it already happened. Are these boys guilty of rape? I do think there's some definite grey area there.

I don't see anything grey here.  

If they are banging someone who is unconscious, they are raping her. Period.  

If they are banging someone who is so wasted they are about to pass out, and who thus is in no state to give consent, they are raping her.  Period.

 

It may not be something they would have done if they were sober, but that's neither here nor there, as is the case in a drunk-driving offence.

It may or may not be easy to get a conviction in a court of law under these circumstances, but that doesn't mean it is not rape.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah none of that was my thing. I preferred committed relationships. And yes I worried about anything from diseases to hurt feelings. I don't know what the general attitude is anymore. I don't care what other people do in that department, but I'm not particularly turned on by the thought of being with someone who is into that.

 

And I'm an atheist who had parents who were relatively liberal in that department. I'm not sure where my feelings on the matter come from exactly.

 

I am so torn on the "get black out drunk" and expect good things to happen thing. A crime is a crime, but what would people think if I carried wads of cash around and laid it on a table at a party and then got piss drunk and woke up to find it gone? Someone still stole the money, but people would think I was insane for insisting it should not have happened. I'm not trying to diminish what some people go through in this department. I'm kinda baffled at this "epidemic" because it was never my experience. Sure I encountered some less than savory guys, but I encountered far more reasonable guys than not. They may have liked the prospect of casual sex, but doesn't mean they insist on taking it whenever they wanted it either.

 

Maybe stuff has gotten uglier or I live under a rock.

 

This is what troubles me, too, and, to take it further, I think there's a pretty scary loophole in there for young males, most definitely a bigger boobie-trap than for females (straight) of the same age and cohort. It's seriously unwise for a female to get that drunk in many settings where that level drunk is precisely what is likely to happen. Why make oneself so vulnerable? It's dumb. OTOH, the equivalent vulnerability for males could carry tremendously greater weight and future impact because now he's not just vulnerable to harm or trouble because he's so sh!t-faced, but if he gets involved in ANY tea activity, he could be stepping into a criminal allegation - and everyone has a cell phone camera now.

 

Personally, getting smashed was never appealing to me, much less random hook-ups, but truthfully, I don't even care to get drunk now as an adult under very non-threatening conditions. I have watched as my age cohorts did/said all manner of idiotic things due to drunkenness, and while non of these things are likely to lead to criminal allegations, I don't want *this* to be the story people remember me by..."Hey, remember that time Quill got plastered at the July 4th party and rode Smitty's St. Bernard dog while swinging her bikini top over her head like a lasso, singing 'Cowboy?' ha, Ha! That was hilarious!" Nope, not so much what I want people to say about me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sparkly's post reminds me of when I was a kid and my granny's husband used to give us money when he was drunk.  My mom always made us give it back. I have a friend whose dad used to get drunk and give away cars and such (which he would not do sober).  So people loved hanging out with him when he was drinking!  Was it a crime to accept and keep what he gave them?  Morally wrong, yes, assuming you know you're taking advantage of his drunkenness.  But a crime?  I don't know.

 

As for blackout drunk, I think you have to apply a reasonable person standard.  Under the same circumstances, would a reasonable person know this individual was basically not herself when xyz occurred?  And in that case, if you know the person (vs. casual encounter), then you should be held to a higher standard, because you can see the contrast between her personality and her blacked-out behavior.  But if the person's behavior looks like consent to a reasonable person in the circumstances, then I don't see how you can blame the other person for reading it as consent.  If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a porcupine?

 

My personal opinion about moral behavior is that you don't have casual or opportunistic sex.  My practical opinion is that you protect yourself from the risk of making a mistake.  But neither of those is the point here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when my DH and I went out to celebrate our 5th wedding anniversary and I made the mistake of drinking on an empty stomach while we were waiting for our table to be ready and continuing to drink with our meal (we took a taxi), then we should've just skipped TeA later that night because I was drunk? Driving while intoxicated poses an inherent risk to public safety. A couple in a committed relationship having TeA while one (or both) are intoxicated doesn't.

 

Now it is risky to have TeA outside of a committed relationship regardless of whether or not alcohol is involved.

 

I missed this earlier, but I was speaking to the OP's co-ed situation and casual encounters and what I would tell a teen, not to a married relationship.  Sorry for not specifying.

 

On the other hand, even in a committed relationship, one person's judgement about what the other person wants or does not want may be significantly impaired.  It's not like being in a married or other long-term relationship makes one immune to these sorts of things.  If it's your wife that's passed out it still goes without saying that she should not be taken advantage of.  It's not a risk to public safety, but rather to the personal safety of the people involved.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what troubles me, too, and, to take it further, I think there's a pretty scary loophole in there for young males, most definitely a bigger boobie-trap than for females (straight) of the same age and cohort. It's seriously unwise for a female to get that drunk in many settings where that level drunk is precisely what is likely to happen. Why make oneself so vulnerable? It's dumb. OTOH, the equivalent vulnerability for males could carry tremendously greater weight and future impact because now he's not just vulnerable to harm or trouble because he's so sh!t-faced, but if he gets involved in ANY tea activity, he could be stepping into a criminal allegation - and everyone has a cell phone camera now.

 

Personally, getting smashed was never appealing to me, much less random hook-ups, but truthfully, I don't even care to get drunk now as an adult under very non-threatening conditions. I have watched as my age cohorts did/said all manner of idiotic things due to drunkenness, and while non of these things are likely to lead to criminal allegations, I don't want *this* to be the story people remember me by..."Hey, remember that time Quill got plastered at the July 4th party and rode Smitty's St. Bernard dog while swinging her bikini top over her head like a lasso, singing 'Cowboy?' ha, Ha! That was hilarious!" Nope, not so much what I want people to say about me.

 

I tell my boys now why it's a very bad idea to get drunk with strangers at parties, with females you don't know VERY well, etc etc.  Not that it is ever a good idea, but if you must...just don't be completely stupid about it.

 

Only time I got plastered was with very very close friends and boyfriends who had already proven themselves committed to me.  I didn't drink a drop at college parties.  I never knew most of those people. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I completely agree...I'm not much of a drinker myself and I would caution both my daughter and my sons against it, but I'm partly eondering if, when DS gets this caution, I should add a layer of, "...and also, if you are too drunk or high to really understand what's going on, you could be accused of rape, at which point, your future is shuttered."

Yes, you absolutely should add that layer. Whether it is fair or not, and whether or not you can imagine how the frat boys got into that situation. (As the mother of a boy, you probably can.) None of that matters from a keep-your-child-safe perspective. This is the way things are here and now and he needs to know to be wary. It doesn,t really matter from a moral perspective, either. You don,t want your child giving tea to anyone who is unconscious or less than an enthusiastic participant so it makes sense to teach your children, no matter their gender, to continuously monitor their partner,s state of mind at all times. And their own. They need to be able to stop if they become uncomfortable AND accept it when their partner says stop, no matter how personally uncomfortable it is. They need to stay in control when doing anything that affects others, like driving or babysitting or drinking tea.

 

I am the mother of three boys. I find the idea of them being accused of rape very scary. I am less scared now, though, than I was ten years ago. The tea analogy and the other tools being used to try to change American campus culture to focus on personal responsibility at all times make me feel better, not worse about things.

 

Nan

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the threesome example from the book? If one of the men had passed out, and then the other two carried on, doing all sorts of things to that passed out male . . . Say Male-Male an*l s*x, that plenty of M-F-M threesomes do . . . Or M-M oral . . . To me, in that situation, both the conscious male and female would be guilty of rape. Those examples might be more obvious to those of us with traditional M-F exclusive relationships . . . But, to me, the same responsibility for not raping falls on all participants. If someone is not conscious, they can't consent. 

 

The reason that the responsibility often seems to unfairly fall on the male is because, in general, in traditional M-F sex acts, an unconscious male can't participate since he is traditionally required to have an erection and actively participate, whereas a female can "participate" simply by being the passive recipient. Bear in mind that there are plenty of sex acts in all sorts of relationships (including M-F ones) that don't follow this norm. Perhaps imagining them might help you understand why responsibility typically falls on males in the circumstances of mutual intoxication. 

 

So, yes, anticipating "typical" inexperienced young-person sexual interactions in M-F relations, I teach my (straight) son that he bears the risk and responsibility of preventing the possibility of a misunderstanding that leads to him raping someone. And, I also teach my (straight) daughters specifically that just because a boy/man isn't a horrible person in general does not mean that they might not violate her if she (and/or he) is highly inebriated. Additionally, I highlight the increased risk of making regrettable or even devastating choices while under the influence -- disease, pregnancy, unwanted sex, even criminal sex. In all cases, I emphasize that sex & inebriation are mutually exclusive, and that they are responsible for maintaining their self-control and for always erring on the side of respect and safety -- just wait until you've both sobered up, and then get back to it, IMHO. 

 

 

My scenario was different: no one was unconscious; just intoxicated. While intoxicated, both consented. I used MF because I think the common scenario is, as I described: she can claim she was too drunk (not passed out) to consent. If he was equally drunk, either both are guilty of rape or neither is. 

  • Like 1
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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

×
×
  • Create New...