There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

RaivoKulli ,

Of course, it’s extremely common too lol

socsa , (edited )

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.

1draw4u ,

These rules apply in which country?

feedum_sneedson ,

I hope so!

snooggums ,
@snooggums@kbin.social avatar

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.

lemmy ,
@lemmy@lemmy.stonansh.org avatar

If your drinking you tend to forget your judgement is impacted.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@kbin.social avatar

I don't forget that it is impacted, but it is hard to tell how impacted it is.

rufus , (edited )

Mmh. Depends on the exact circumstances. Needs to be judged one a case by case basis.

But once you’re completely intoxicated, just lie there and sleep soundly in a puddle of vomit, I’d say this is definitely too much for consent. …Drunk depends…

2d ,
@2d@kbin.social avatar

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?

MaggiWuerze ,

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.

MrFunnyMoustache ,

Not sure about the specifics of the law (I never drink alcohol, so I never bothered to read up on it), but from an ethical point of view, it highly depends on how drunk the two are. Is one of them significantly more intoxicated than the other?

Generally speaking, I’d recommend against it unless you aren’t THAT drunk. When you are significantly intoxicated, you are less likely to be able to express your discomfort or notice/recognise your partner’s discomfort, so there is always the risk that you, while drunk, might think you’re having consensual sex while the reality was that the other was unable to consent and actively wanted to stop, and you misunderstood their intent.

Obviously it matters greatly if the two already know and trust each other, and are more likely to recognise when the other is uncomfortable compared to strangers hooking up for a one night stand, so there is another layer of consideration.

Generally speaking, probably best to avoid getting hammered and having sex.

Xanthrax , (edited )
@Xanthrax@lemmy.world avatar

No. Don’t get drunk with people to have sex.

AbsolutelyNotCats ,
@AbsolutelyNotCats@lemdro.id avatar

I think you missed the point

1000035093

Xanthrax , (edited )
@Xanthrax@lemmy.world avatar

It was a question, and the answer is no. You can’t consent and they can’t consent, if you’re both inebriated. You can play what ever mental gymantics you want to basically justify rape (which you may be the victim of, I’m not calling you a rapist), but the reality is still the same, especially amongst strangers or people on a first date. I will die on this hill

AbsolutelyNotCats ,
@AbsolutelyNotCats@lemdro.id avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    Xanthrax ,
    @Xanthrax@lemmy.world avatar

    Because we don’t get drunk and rape people? Wtf is this comment chain. You guys are making a disgusting echo chamber to make yourselves feel better about potentially raping people.

    FierroGamer ,

    Lmao why is almost everyone talking about the law? Morals can exist regardless of the law

    balderdash9 OP ,

    That’s a poignant philosophical observation:

    https://lemmy.zip/pictrs/image/481e5be6-e407-4653-8b94-576206c1c695.webp

    original_ish_name ,

    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

    teawrecks ,

    Whose morals?

    FierroGamer ,

    I’m curious, if not from the people discussing, what kind of answer were you expecting?

    teawrecks ,

    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.

    FierroGamer , (edited )

    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?

    teawrecks ,

    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.

    wahming ,

    Morals changing the laws is exactly how we’re ending up with the right wing BS that is American politics

    Bitrot ,
    @Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    Morals changing laws is often a justification for authoritarianism or excluding “immoral” people from basic protections.

    Laws and morals shouldn’t be the same. I’d prefer most people keep their morals out of laws.

    EuroNutellaMan , (edited )
    @EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world avatar

    Depends primarily on prior agreement.

    If before being drunk both parties stated something along the lines of “let’s get drunk and have sex” and both agreed then it is obviously consensual. Grabted consent can be removed at any point but if neither party states/shows intention to back out it is safe to assume that there was consent during the act even if both parties were drunk because they’d agreed to it beforehand.

    An important distinction to make is between the prior scenario in which both people agree with each other and one where I (hypothetical I) go to an event where it is explicitly stated that there will be a lot of alcohol and sex, I know of this fact and I agree that I want to have sex whike drunk. This is because while the assumption of consent still holds true it is an assumption as I need to know beforehand what I’m getting into and it’s not exactly a given that I would consent to having it with anyone at that party over specific people. This obviously complicates things. Essentially everyone involved would need to be on the same page as tonwhat they’re getting into and agree beforehand that they want to have sex whike drunk and with whom.

    If there’s no prior agreement the safest bet is don’t have sex with drunk people. Naturally if both are at an equal level of drunkenness (≠ equal amount of drinks) it is difficult to assign blame but that doesn’t mean both consented. It also depends on the level of drunkenness: two buzzed people who are still capable of understanding what is going on, can still communicate and are just less inhibited can probably still consent, two passed out drunk people cannot consent.

    Nougat ,

    [Granted,] consent can be removed at any point but if neither party states/shows intention to back out it is safe to assume that there was consent during the act even if both parties were drunk because they’d agreed to it beforehand.

    And a state of intoxication can prevent someone from being able to express the desire to remove consent. It is entirely possible to start an encounter with that capability, and have an intoxicant ingested before the encounter take away that capability after the encounter has begun.

    Let's complicate the hypothetical further: Both parties are fully sober, and agree to a sexual encounter, in which Party One will pretend to be blacked out. Party One ingests an intoxicant in secret, and actually blacks out after the encounter has begun. Is Party Two guilty of a crime?

    EuroNutellaMan ,
    @EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world avatar

    Sure a state of intoxication can remove the ability to consent and that is something the two need to discuss beforehand too, but if here both are equally drunk or they agreed to it at any level of drunkenness, nobody can read minds so going by the information available to any person we can say there was consent because they agreed beforehand. If any part specifies “it’s ok unless we get too drunk” then it’s a different case of course.

    I don’t fully understand what you mean in the second question, is part one agreeing to pretend to be blacked out but then blacks themselves out without part two knowing? Or is part one not knowing they are getting knocked out drunk? Because in the first case, where Person 1 agrees to have sex when pretending to be blacked out but then secretly blacks themselves out then person 2 is innocent and if anything the victim since they consented to having sex with the other person pretending to be in an intoxicated state and not necessarily actually being in that state. If it’s the second scenario then person 2 is completely guilty because person 1 did not agree to having sex while being blacked out

    usualsuspect191 ,

    In your hypothetical, party one is the guilty one. By lying, they’ve altered the situation and therefore doesn’t actually have party two’s consent (in the same way “stealthing” changes the equation).

    pixxelkick ,

    Its a “two wrongs dont make a right” situation in many countries.

    One person is drunk means they cant consent.

    Both people are drunk doesn’t magically eliminate that. It just means now neither of them can legally consent.

    Think about the question reframed like so:

    “Does being drunk make me immune to raping others?”

    Obviously the answer becomes “no”, right?

    balderdash9 OP ,

    I didn’t pose the question to argue in the comments. That said, I would argue that the question I raised is very different from the question you’ve rephrased. It’s obvious that if you (being drunk) force yourself on someone who is sober, then that is rape; it is less obvious whether two drunk people who think they’re giving consent can (morally/ legally) give consent.

    Here I don’t mean to argue against your interpretation of consent because I wanted to hear different opinions in the first place. I just don’t think that’s a fair rephrase of the question because it renders the original question trivial.

    pixxelkick ,

    it is less obvious whether two drunk people who think they’re giving consent can (morally/ legally) give consent.

    It isn’t. Neither of them can consent, full stop.

    Whether it is rape however gets determined in court by a judge and potentially jury. Burden of proof is on the accuser etc etc.

    If neither of them charge the either with rape, then neither of them have raped the other.

    From a legal standpoint

    If you don’t have a rape conviction on your record, you are not a rapist… from a legal standpoint. Full stop.

    The question was “can they consent to have sex with each other”, which is technical inherently. Consent is a technical legal term.

    Now, what many people perhaps are instead in this thread addressing is the question: “Is it ethical to have drunk sex with someone who is trying to consent”

    And I would say yes, its fine, under the following conditions:

    Condition 1: You have had consensual sex with this person before under sober circumstances

    If there is already a pretense for consensual sex with this person and this is a followup to that, then it’s much more reasonable to assume that they want to fuck again. If this is the first time sex is being initiated however, I would politely decline but let them know that if later, when they are sober, they still wanna fuck, then I am game. I have a personal rule that my first time I have sex with someone should be when stone cold sober… Not just for consent reasons (which is obvious as a reason), but I want the first time we have sex to be when I am at my best performance and able to make a good first impression.

    Condition 2: There was already prior implied consent before they got drunk

    If this person was hitting on me and indicating an interest in sex before they started drinking, and now that they have had a drink or two they are following up on that prior consent, that’s also fine imo. If someone is chatting me up and flirting, indicating they are into me, and clearly signaling intent while sober… then they go get a bit tipsy and come back and indicate now they REALLY wanna fuck… that’s also fine because it’s clear even when sober prior they were interested.

    In other words, if I have never had sex with them before and there was no indication when they were sober they wanted to have sex, and only once drunk suddenly now they wanna fuck… thats a big nope from me, I steer clear of that situation and politely decline as thats not going to be really consensual, and even from an ethical standpoint I can’t bring myself to have sex with someone who only demonstrated interest once drunk.

    balderdash9 OP ,

    So your position is: 1) You can never give consent while drunk. 2) It only counts as rape if someone is accused and convicted in court and 3) Although you can’t consent while drunk, it is okay to have sex with people who have consented while sober. Am I understanding you right?

    There are some holes that one could poke in this view, but it’s an interesting one and I thank you for sharing it. It’s good that we can have these conversations even though we disagree.

    average650 ,
    @average650@lemmy.world avatar

    So … they raped each other? They could both go to jail?

    SwingingTheLamp ,

    Wisconsin has in the past prosecuted two 17-year-olds as adults on sexual assault charges for having sex with each other. So, yeah, the legal system has no qualms about treating people as both victim and perpetrator for the same action.

    average650 ,
    @average650@lemmy.world avatar

    That’s… stupid honestly

    pixxelkick ,

    They would have to press charges and take the other to court, and the burden of proof is on the accuser.

    average650 ,
    @average650@lemmy.world avatar

    Crimes are prosecuted by the state. It’s hard if the victim is uncooperative, but not impossible.

    ArumiOrnaught ,

    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.

    newIdentity ,

    But what if both people are on MDMA? I know I get very horny on it and fall in love with everything.

    ArumiOrnaught ,

    My second and third paragraph should have that covered.

    If it is a situation where you know you get horny and someone is trying MDMA for the first time, you don't disclose that you do get horny, and you have sex. I would say that is a gray area that leans towards bad.

    My first time trying edibles was with someone that I already had sex with and was planning on having sex with that night. If we got horny from that and fucked sooner than expected then that would be fine.

    I guess to sum up, if you put someone in a situation where they don't have knowledge of the possibilities that is bad. Everyone already feels this when it comes to other things. Like hidden fees. They said x but y happened. Why should I expect y to happen? This is a new situation and I'm ignorant and you took advantage of it. Even if I got what I originally wanted the "price" changed.

    YoBuckStopsHere ,
    @YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world avatar

    No, any alcohol consumption means parties can not consent.

    AbsolutelyNotCats ,
    @AbsolutelyNotCats@lemdro.id avatar

    Anti European moment

    NoIWontPickaName ,

    There is no way you actually believe that

    lol3droflxp ,
    @lol3droflxp@kbin.social avatar

    The whole social system is centred around alcohol.

    SwingingTheLamp ,

    Actually, you can never get consent for sure. It was only freshman philosophy class, but I remember studying philosophy of mind, and the concept of a philosophical zombie. No, not the shambling undead thinking deeply about the ethics of eating brains, but a thought experiment about a thing that behaves in all of the ways that you would expect of a human, but which has no conscious experience, and therefore no intent.

    AI is helping to demonstrate the point that you can never know the mind of another person, and no way to know whether there is a conscious mind capable of consent behind the actions. Therefore, the best bet is to never have sex.

    (The above is irony, in case Poe’s Law applies.)

    Lanthanae , (edited )
    @Lanthanae@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    1draw4u ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    EuroNutellaMan ,
    @EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world avatar

    So since I don’t drink I can’t hookup with drunk girls?

    Exactly, you can’t. That would be rape.

    1draw4u ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    EuroNutellaMan , (edited )
    @EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world avatar

    No.

    Being able to consent means being able to both understand what you’re consenting to and being able to communicate that you consent to it.

    A drunk person can’t understand what they’re consenting to and, after certain levels of drunkenness, can’t communicate their consent either. Therefore they can’t consent.

    As the other commenter pointed out, I hope the women around you know you’re not a safe person to be around.

    1draw4u ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    1draw4u ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    EuroNutellaMan ,
    @EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world avatar

    I’m very thoughtful and delicate regarding consent

    Given what you’ve said so far I’m gonna call bullshit on that.

    1draw4u ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    EuroNutellaMan , (edited )
    @EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world avatar

    You do realize that there are different levels of drunkenness right

    Literally re-read what I said.

    So a person who drank one beer can not consent anymore, is that what you are telling me?

    If the person can’t handle the beer then it cannot consent. If you’re sober and they’re drunk then you are raping them.

    There’s 2 questions that must be asked in these situation

    1. did she consent to it before being drunk?
    2. is she capable of still understanding what’s going on and guve/remove consent?

    If the answer to any one of these is “no”, “wellll”, “idk”, “I think/guess so”, or anything other than a very clear yes then she can’t consent. And when in doubt, assume the answer is no.

    Lanthanae ,
    @Lanthanae@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    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.

    1draw4u ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    EuroNutellaMan ,
    @EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    Lanthanae ,
    @Lanthanae@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    socsa ,

    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.

    Lanthanae ,
    @Lanthanae@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    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?

    1draw4u ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    Lanthanae ,
    @Lanthanae@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    1draw4u ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    Lanthanae ,
    @Lanthanae@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    Why do you think that? I do not see any connection between my comment and you conclusion here.

    VelvetStorm ,

    Absolutely. It would depend on how drunk though imo. My wife and I have gotten drunk and had sex and ive done the same with my girlfriend(I’m poly not cheating). If someone was black out drunk or so drunk they clearly can’t take care of themselves then I would say no

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •