I agree with most of what you say, I'm not trying to defend taking advantage of drunk people, I just don't consider it rape (although it is really despicable).
That's true that someone who's just a little tipsy would be fully capable of making their own decisions, including the decision to have sex or drive. But if they drive while even a little tipsy, that is still enough for them to kill someone, and so they should be arrested alright.
However if you say that someone who's really drunk isn't capable of making the decision to have sex (and that therefore if someone has sex with them then they should be charged with rape), then the same should be true for any other decision, including driving.
If the person was completely drunk (rather than just a little tipsy), then that'd mean they were incapable of making the decision to drive in the first place. Therefore if they were caught drink driving, then arguably they shouldn't be arrested for it, because they couldn't have possibly consented to the act in that state. Of course this argument is ridiculous, they should be held responsible and face the consequences. But then why is the same not true for the decision to have sex with someone? It's a double-standard, and just such a glaring flaw that I've found in this argument about drinking and consent.
I don't agree with the idea of being too drunk to consent
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I agree with most of what you say, I'm not trying to defend taking advantage of drunk people, I just don't consider it rape (although it is really despicable).
That's true that someone who's just a little tipsy would be fully capable of making their own decisions, including the decision to have sex or drive. But if they drive while even a little tipsy, that is still enough for them to kill someone, and so they should be arrested alright.
However if you say that someone who's really drunk isn't capable of making the decision to have sex (and that therefore if someone has sex with them then they should be charged with rape), then the same should be true for any other decision, including driving.
If the person was completely drunk (rather than just a little tipsy), then that'd mean they were incapable of making the decision to drive in the first place. Therefore if they were caught drink driving, then arguably they shouldn't be arrested for it, because they couldn't have possibly consented to the act in that state. Of course this argument is ridiculous, they should be held responsible and face the consequences. But then why is the same not true for the decision to have sex with someone? It's a double-standard, and just such a glaring flaw that I've found in this argument about drinking and consent.