At what point is a person too drunk to consent for sex?

[sammael]

A few days ago I got into a fist fight over a couple of guys trying to leave a party with an apparently willing, but very drunk girl that I know. I've always had a big problem with guys taking advantage of women that aren't in any state to be making decisions (or vice versa), however I am well aware that the matter is not just black and white, and I think I do tend to err on the side of being overly cautious, which isn't necessarily a good thing (stopping people from a harmless, enjoyable experience). In this particular instance the girl involved seemed rather indifferent about the whole affair when I saw her the next day. I'm still not really sure that my actions were the right thing to do.

For myself, I will not touch a woman if she is under the influence, no matter what she indicates with her speech or actions. Occasionally this leads to awkward situations where a woman remembers at a later date that I turned her down, and makes a deal out of it . In these type of situations it may well have been better (for a variety of potential reasons; the sex being inconsequential in comparison to what she gets out of the interaction) for the woman involved if I didn't have such stringent criteria (and for myself not having to deal with that shit). But at least I have never done anything that would make it hard for me to look at myself in the mirror.

So, to the question. People handle alcohol in different ways, and its effects come at varying degrees, dependent on a multitude of factors. It really seems impossible to make that call without potentially erring heavily either way. Do you just make it no with the bar set well into safe territory like I do, or make it yes as long as she (or he) appears to be willing like many guys I know do? Do you judge it case by case, and if so, how? How does how drunk you are yourself affect the ethics of the whole equation? Also any opinions or thoughts on my above mentioned approach and experiences are welcome.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Do you just make it no with the bar set well into safe territory like I do, or make it yes as long as she (or he) appears to be willing like many guys I know do? Do you judge it case by case, and if so, how? How does how drunk you are yourself affect the ethics of the whole equation? Also any opinions or thoughts on my above mentioned approach and experiences are welcome.

I think if we quantify a limit, it would be whatever said state's legal blood alcohol content is for driving. But not everyone can carry a breathalyzer around with them...

My approach depends on the person. If I care about them, I take your approach unless we're already in an established relationship and are more comfortable with eachother. Ideally we'd have experienced eachother drunk enough times without sex that we know where eachother's limits are regarding alcohol (or any other substance, for that matter).

If I don't care about them, or if there is a priori permission such as that involved in BDSM, I'll push the limits as far as I can, in either direction. I do this because I value the experience and believe it's meaningful for the other party as well.

When I'm drunk... I only attempt behaviors of that level of man-slutty ridiculousness when slizzered, which is due to cognitive impairment. Usually the other parties are well informed regarding how to handle me beforehand. Only twice (the first two times I got utterly wasted) have they not been. If someone took advantage of me in this situation without a priori permission (as opposed to voluntarily providing me with various benefits during an altered state), I'd probably consider... severely hurting them.

If I were in your situation, I'd have remained neutral and trusted in the girl's choices. Wasted sex may well have been her goal, or she may have been okay with the idea beforehand, hence her decision to go to the bar and drink so much. If she's been drunk several times previously, she likely knows her limits (e.g. after my second time, I knew my limit for maximum euphoria was 5 cans of beer with 5% alcohol content, but perhaps I'm an overachiever).

 

[Solitaire U.]

You meddling prude!

No, kidding. I don't know. I'm against drugging or drinking someone into a stupor with the sole intent of taking sexual advantage of them, but I also believe that people often decide for themselves to use alcohol to lower their own sexual inhibitions. It's kind of like a convenient little excuse; "Yeah, we were drunk, we fucked because we were drunk, and now we're not drunk so there's no reason to discuss it, or consider revisiting the incident."

The fact that the woman in question was indifferent when you informed her the next day kind of indicates that she may have been thinking along those lines.

Hence, I don't interfere in people's personal decisions to drink, to fuck, or whatever, unless there's some obvious danger to uninvolved innocent people, such as driving while drunk, an act which I have indeed intervened upon in the past.

Also, I've learned it's best to avoid altercations with people who have the advantage of drunkenness or insanity.

 

[Hadoblado]

I won't sleep with someone that is more drunk than I am. That said, I've seen people with similar criteria that drink in order to meet this threshold. I am also opposed to that.

 

[TimeAsylums]

comatose

 

[SpaceYeti]

If the person understands what's happening, they can consent to it... at least, as far as I'm concerned. The law is fairly black and white. If someone has any amount of alcohol in thier system, they cannot legally consent. I think that's pretty silly, since most people are essentially uneffected after one or two drinks, as far as understanding what's currently happening is concerned. Further, anything you do while under the influence I still hold you accountable. You chose to drink in the first place, after all. It's no secret what happens when you drink, it's not like people think alcohol is as harmless as any other drink.

What I am against is predatory drink pandering used specifically to make somebody more likely to make a poor decision in your favor. Worse still is roofieing, which is patently immoral.

I had a chamge of mind on this subject about ten or fifteen years ago. My girlfriend at the time was drunk, so I told her I would not take advantage of her. She said we'd be having sex anyway, it's not like her being drunk matters. That's pretty much the key. If she wouldn't be having sex with you if she were sober, don't do it while she's drunk.

 

[Grayman]

I agree with spaceYetti.


In my point of view, manipulation for the gains of sex is only a little better than rape. Being drunk is not a factor just a tool they use. If they are honest and up front about wanting sex and the girl has no hesitation in her willingness then it is safe to assume that she is not feeling pressured or intimidated, otherwise it is fairly close to rape through intimidation and manipulation.

Honestly anyone who drinks and suffers from the results is suffering from their own bad behavior. I have little respect for people who muddle there mind for some virtual emotional gain that does not exist and call it fun.

I would never have anything to do with a woman who gets drunk of any level.

 

[not]

Each state has their own set of laws. In our state, my friend learned the hard way that if the woman is under 21, it does not matter how much, even .001 percent and he was still found guilty of sexual assault.

If we are discussing preferences... I rarely find sex with a woman who is intoxicated enjoyable. So I avoid it. Especially if it is a new encounter and you lack that emotional bond, or worse, it is a new encounter with someone you really want to establish a bond with. - Of course my mind just asked, "What if she really wants it and rejecting the offer pushes her away?" - "Fuck you Mind, why do you always have to complicate things?"

What if the guy is the only one intoxicated? Is it sexual assault if a woman has sex with an intoxicated man?

 

[Grayman]

... - "Fuck you Mind, why do you always have to complicate things?"

What if the guy is the only one intoxicated? Is it sexual assault if a woman has sex with an intoxicated man?

I love the argument you have with Mind. I generally replace Mind, when it is not really mind but instead emotional lust using the mind for its evil goals, with a person even if it is me. In this case it should be a tall blonde with a tail and forked tongue...mmmm...kinky...


Now you know the world is a giant pack of double standard hypocrites, right?
Anyways all this was just to ask if you are asking this question for legal information or concern for mortality and ethics.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

This thread highlights the importance of Craigslist Casual Encounters.

 

[TimeAsylums]

This thread highlights the importance of Craigslist Casual Encounters.

As far as my personal and close friends experience goes, theirs always included bud or alcohol.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

As far as my personal and close friends experience goes, theirs always included bud or alcohol.

Coupled with a priori consent and anonymity.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Coupled with a priori consent and anonymity.

ik, was just contrasting to which a couple of posters statements about no sexual activity whatsoever under any intoxication

 

[not]

I don't smoke or drink because there is no in-between, happy middle ground for me. It's either I am always sober, or always fucked up. I just happen to be in the sober phase of my cycle.

 

[Grayman]

ik, was just contrasting to which a couple of posters statements about no sexual activity whatsoever under any intoxication

What is the point of your contrast? What is it you are trying to point out.

 

[TimeAsylums]

What is the point of your contrast? What is it you are trying to point out.

so direct u r

don't express my covertness

 

[Duxwing]

Each state has their own set of laws. In our state, my friend learned the hard way that if the woman is under 21, it does not matter how much, even .001 percent and he was still found guilty of sexual assault.

How was her BAC established after the fact?

-Duxwing

 

[Grayman]

so direct u r

don't express my covertness

I can usually see the meaning but prefer to establish a solid foundation of the discussion before comment.

 

[TimeAsylums]

solid foundation

you'll scare away all the Ne's like that

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

A few days ago I got into a fist fight over a couple of guys trying to leave a party with an apparently willing, but very drunk girl that I know. I've always had a big problem with guys taking advantage of women that aren't in any state to be making decisions (or vice versa), however I am well aware that the matter is not just black and white, and I think I do tend to err on the side of being overly cautious, which isn't necessarily a good thing (stopping people from a harmless, enjoyable experience). In this particular instance the girl involved seemed rather indifferent about the whole affair when I saw her the next day. I'm still not really sure that my actions were the right thing to do.

For myself, I will not touch a woman if she is under the influence, no matter what she indicates with her speech or actions. Occasionally this leads to awkward situations where a woman remembers at a later date that I turned her down, and makes a deal out of it . In these type of situations it may well have been better (for a variety of potential reasons; the sex being inconsequential in comparison to what she gets out of the interaction) for the woman involved if I didn't have such stringent criteria (and for myself not having to deal with that shit). But at least I have never done anything that would make it hard for me to look at myself in the mirror.

So, to the question. People handle alcohol in different ways, and its effects come at varying degrees, dependent on a multitude of factors. It really seems impossible to make that call without potentially erring heavily either way. Do you just make it no with the bar set well into safe territory like I do, or make it yes as long as she (or he) appears to be willing like many guys I know do? Do you judge it case by case, and if so, how? How does how drunk you are yourself affect the ethics of the whole equation? Also any opinions or thoughts on my above mentioned approach and experiences are welcome.

For me that would be, when the person clearly shows symptoms of being a little too out of his/her mind.
That would require me to know the person to a degree.
But i would never have sex with a complete stranger in the first place.
It has this throwaway society aura, which i despise.
Humans should under no circumstance be regarded as disposable.
I have never been able to grasp the idea of having sex with an unconscious or confused being either.
Those who do engage in this behaviour are the scum of the earth for me.
Yes, that's radical, but that's my two cents on the issue.

 

[EditorOne]

Sammael, you come from a long line of reluctant, highly principled white knights, usually hiding behind a veneer of cynicism, often with a tendency to philosophical overanalysis, a jigger of self effacement and a pint of despair over the human condition . All fictional, all admirable. Don't beat yourself up. If you go back over traditional INTP characteristics, "agreeable until principles are violated" is a big one.
Here's some of your peer group:
Travis McGee; Sam Spade; Philip Marlowe; Spenser

Google them if they're outside your experience. You won't waste your time. You're kind of on your way to becoming a literary archetype.

There's nothing wrong with what you're doing. You might want to take up martial arts if you persist, though.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

i'm stupid.

 

[Grayman]

i'm stupid.

In comparison to who? In comparison to me, all would adopt this adjective. In comparison to me while in a comma, all would adopt the adjective of smart. I do think the world is centered around me, so it is only logical to use me as a reference of all human properties.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

In comparison to who? In comparison to me, all would adopt this adjective. In comparison to me while in a comma, all would adopt the adjective of smart. I do think the world is centered around me, so it is only logical to use me as a reference of all human properties.

You have just made your 666th posts, i hope you're happy with that. :smiley_emoticons_mr
But, as you seem to be well-versed wizard, i suppose you know what you are doing.


Could this be the start of a solipsism debate?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Please, why there is this distinction made between alcohol and drugs. Every drug works tad differently, they all share aware intake.
Let the happy drink and use their needles, they can wake up in their wonderland.

There is nothing wrong in setting good rules, be mindful then. Knight becomes responsible for himself, orphans, ladies in distress, ladies in apparent distress, distress seeking. Trouble lots.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The distinction does sort of become warranted by its own merit though. Alcohol -while indeed a drug like any another- and its ups and downs are well known by the common man; furthermore, it's socially accepted to drink yourself stupid.

Of course this is fucking stupid, but how alcohol is seen and known really does put it in its place. Still a drug though.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Yes it comes down to common use of the term and understanding.

 

[Cavalli]

Now I was going to write an introduction thread first, but I saw this and couldn't wait to reply seeing as how I had the exact same debate with my philosophy teacher a few weeks ago!

In answer to the original question: I think it all depends on just how drunk they are. I'm sixteen, so this isn't exactly a part of my everyday life, however I do attend a senior campus which means a lot of my friends are older than me, 18, 19, 20+ year olds, whatever. This means that the few parties I go to, people are drinking and trying to have sex.

Right now, I don't see anything wrong with having sex with someone that's drunk; on the condition that it's obvious they do consent, and you stop if it even slightly looks like the other party isn't consenting anymore. After all, how many harmless one night stands occur as a result of two drunk people going home from a bar together?

The problem occurs only when the woman is so drunk that she quite clearly isn't conscious of what the hell is happening, when she clearly doesn't know what's going on, or she's been coerced/drugged.

On a slight tangent, a personal pet hate of mine is women (or men) claiming that they were 'raped' after they merely went home - consenting - and slept with someone while you were drunk. As far as I'm concerned there, that's you making a poor decision while you were intoxicated and not being able to take responsibility for it. Maybe the other person was a bit of a sly dick and somewhat pushed the boundaries of what's considered 'morally correct', but that doesn't mean they raped you.

*Shrug* As I said though, I haven't exactly been in this situation before, so thoughts and opinions may change as I grow older.

...Now off to write that introduction thread.

 

[shoeless]

it's impossible to define the exact point to which a person can no longer consent (by volume of drink, that is). everybody metabolizes alcohol differently.

(personal note time!) i was once coerced into having sex when i was so drunk i couldn't walk. well, i wouldn't even say coerced. i wouldn't say i was forced, either, though. it's difficult to explain. mostly it just happened, and i gained no pleasure from it. i was drunk to the point where i literally could not speak. i may have been drugged. i don't really know.
anyway, my point is, if the person in question is unable to control their most basic functions (like walking and speaking), you shouldn't be having sex with them. i'm sure it could be argued that there is a point before that where it's still unacceptable, but that, to me, is the definite point. that experience almost ruined my life. don't be a life-ruiner. that's all.

 

[confused]

Question for OP.. Would you have done the same thing if the friend was a male rather than a female? So two girls are trying to take your drunk male friend home..

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

We need one of these that displays and tracks blood alcohol level:

http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/moodinq-tattoo.shtml

 

[Latte]

On a slight tangent, a personal pet hate of mine is women (or men) claiming that they were 'raped' after they merely went home - consenting - and slept with someone while you were drunk. As far as I'm concerned there, that's you making a poor decision while you were intoxicated and not being able to take responsibility for it. Maybe the other person was a bit of a sly dick and somewhat pushed the boundaries of what's considered 'morally correct', but that doesn't mean they raped you.

*Shrug* As I said though, I haven't exactly been in this situation before, so thoughts and opinions may change as I grow older.

If one thinks about it, this is likely a very rare occurence. In the best case scenario where they are believed, victims of rape are often stigmatized in most cultures. Usually they are pitied by a lot and seen as broken by many.

To lie about it just is in the extreme majority of cases not worth it, even for a sociopath.

Statistics rather indicate extreme underreporting of rape due to fear of not being believed, being shamed or just generally being looked at weirdly. Being frozen out, basically.

When you hear about rumors of someone falsely accusing someone else of rape, it is far more likely than not that a rape actually did occur.

If one considers the incentives for someone who actually raped someone to say that it was consensual and that the person who says it was raped is being malicious, then the incentive is most definitely there in pretty much every case. A rapist has its reputation and freedom to lose, and likely no qualms about claiming that the rape didn't occur.

This is likely how the myth of the prevalence of falsely reported rapes is generated. Alongside the very few who are innocent, pretty much every guilty person will say they were wrongfully accused and mostly their families and friends will want to believe them and thus the stories spread.

 

[Pikachu]

Probably making me drunk is the only way to have sex with me.
Unfortunately, I'm a strong drinker.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I would say when a person has poor judgment & coordination or blacks out they're too drunk to consent. Otherwise you'd have to know an individual in both sober and drunken states, and it would also be up to your own morals/drunkenness.

From a legal standpoint, if only one person was drunk and there was no clear intention of sex/intimacy I'd personally consider it an abuse.

Probably making me drunk is the only way to have sex with me.
Unfortunately, I'm a strong drinker.

Spoiler

 

[Etheri]

I think if we quantify a limit, it would be whatever said state's legal blood alcohol content is for driving. But not everyone can carry a breathalyzer around with them...

She likely knows her limits (e.g. after my second time, I knew my limit for maximum euphoria was 5 cans of beer with 5% alcohol content, but perhaps I'm an overachiever).

Honestly, that's rather harsh. Driving limits here are very, very strict. 2 to 3 beers and you're over it, which I understand as it impairs your driving. That being said, you're still capable of deciding whether or not you want to have sex perfectly. I live in a student city, going out, getting drunk isn't exactly taboo.

I don't think people use 'sexual assault' for 'willing sex but I was drunk' here. If you got drunk beyond your limit, it's your own fault, not anyone elses.

And truth be told, alcohol might make you horny, but the sex would be sloppy to say the least. I mean, if you're too drunk to decide whether or not you should have sex, the sex isn't exactly going to be good.

 

[Pikachu]

I mean, if you're too drunk to decide whether or not you should have sex, the sex isn't exactly going to be good.

It would be so sleepy when you're really drunk.
I don't think a sleepy person has enough desire to decide about anything.