The are many differences in your examples.
One: who the aggravator is
Two: if you're less drunk than the other individual
Three: if a drunk person is throwing themselves at you sexually, you can decline. It isn't the same as someone being drunk and attacking you, which you cant decline.
So, I 100% think someone can be too drunk to consent.
perfect example:
There have been many times where people have been hammered and thrown themselves at me and I've declined because I was sober or much more sober than they were and i could tell they wouldn't remember( not consent) and I would. They would possibly regret it ( not making sound choices, also not consent), so to me, that's nonconsensual sex. The amount of people that dont see that and dont think " I shouldn't do this" astounds me.
Plus, there are the many many examples of the one person being so drunk they can barely speak and someone taking them home to fuck them even when they say "no,no" in a drunken stammer.
Some people are so fucking desperate they'll take a drunk consent as consent. I dont move forward with an action unless I know I am getting an enthusiastic yes.
Well I chose that example because I wanted to show how the same excuse of being too drunk to consent could be used as an argument to get away with doing something really bad.
In your example, if you did have sex with that drunken person, even knowing that they may not remember or would regret it, then I still wouldn't regard that as rape. I'm not defending it though. It would still be disgusting alright, and it astounds me as well that many people would go through with this. But I still couldn't call it rape.
Well "No" means "No". It doesn't matter if they say it in a drunken stammer or not. Pretending you didn't hear it or not taking it seriously because it was barely comprehensible isn't good enough. It's still rape if the person still has sex with them after they said "No".
I don't agree with the idea of being too drunk to consent
← View full post
The are many differences in your examples.
One: who the aggravator is
Two: if you're less drunk than the other individual
Three: if a drunk person is throwing themselves at you sexually, you can decline. It isn't the same as someone being drunk and attacking you, which you cant decline.
So, I 100% think someone can be too drunk to consent.
perfect example:
There have been many times where people have been hammered and thrown themselves at me and I've declined because I was sober or much more sober than they were and i could tell they wouldn't remember( not consent) and I would. They would possibly regret it ( not making sound choices, also not consent), so to me, that's nonconsensual sex. The amount of people that dont see that and dont think " I shouldn't do this" astounds me.
Plus, there are the many many examples of the one person being so drunk they can barely speak and someone taking them home to fuck them even when they say "no,no" in a drunken stammer.
Some people are so fucking desperate they'll take a drunk consent as consent. I dont move forward with an action unless I know I am getting an enthusiastic yes.
--
JellyBeanBandit
11 months ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Well I chose that example because I wanted to show how the same excuse of being too drunk to consent could be used as an argument to get away with doing something really bad.
In your example, if you did have sex with that drunken person, even knowing that they may not remember or would regret it, then I still wouldn't regard that as rape. I'm not defending it though. It would still be disgusting alright, and it astounds me as well that many people would go through with this. But I still couldn't call it rape.
Well "No" means "No". It doesn't matter if they say it in a drunken stammer or not. Pretending you didn't hear it or not taking it seriously because it was barely comprehensible isn't good enough. It's still rape if the person still has sex with them after they said "No".