>


A drunk person can definitely be the pursuer/agitator.

If a drunk person rapes someone else against their well, then they are still guilty regardless of their intoxication. But if a drunk person tries to have sex with you, and it's clear that they are too intoxicated to be making the decision, you (the sober person) can simply say no.
/u/Objective-Ad-4155 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Thank you that's is insight knowledge. >

In all your examples you provided, depending on the circumstances they could all be found void and no responsibility it's required or not meeting the bar and requiring consideration. >

How likely is could be? >

Varies heavily by circumstances of the specific case, specific strategies employed by both prosecutor and defense and then the judge/laws of the location. 
As with all things in law, it heavily depends. >

How easy would it be for me to talk you into signing a contract if you were blackout drunk? >

Very easy or absolutely impossible depending on my mood. >

Lucky for you and your bank account, contracts signed while impaired are generally considered void because you couldn't consent. >

Is that so? Okay, that seems to add a bit of consistency but there is still this "generally" and all other things that don't fall under that umbrella. Is consent to be considered a spoken contract? I feel one could paint it that way but it'd still be a reach in the face of everything else.
Δ >

You can't sign a contract without consent - a contract signed at gunpoint isn't valid, for instance. >

At would likewise be rape without question. I am not responsible for being held at gunpoint while I am responsible for non contractual actions as has been pointed out to me. This hold water considering autonomy through a legal lens but partially. >

So you agree that there's legal precedent for alcohol making voluntary consent impossible? >

That is a given. The issue is moreso uneven application. >

Please read the title of your CMV, the comment above this, and your response. What are you actually trying to do here? What is actually being argued? >

That a person is responsible for every action they take while intoxicated so long as they were not drugged. If someone gives consent while drunk but of course still conscious it is unreasonable to withdraw that consent after the fact on the basis of the alcohol changing the person's behavior. >

Try picturing yourself drunk with an older man wanting to have sex with you and picture how varying degrees of drunk would make you react:
Sober - sorry man I'm straight and not interested 
Tipsy - "nooo I'm not intetesssted"
Out of it - "where are we goinnng"
Almost blackout- "agg thenxjkmd dkxkdm"
Blackout - just silence
Men have historically and publicly looked for women they know would normally reject them and try to get with them when alcohol has made them vulnerable and less aware of their surroundings. If it is not an emphatic yes, it is probably not consent. Consent is more than just "not saying no". If you are not sure that the other person is enthusiastically and verbally consenting, protect them and protect yourself. If you are surprised the person is into you or they are not speaking in full intelligible sentences, it is probably not Consent. If you are not able to discuss birth control, it is stupid and probably not consent. Don't shoot for vulnerable people who you know wouldn't give you the time of day sober and then act surprised when they are pissed. People are rarely equally drunk - usually one is more aware than the other. >


Try picturing yourself drunk with an older man wanting to have sex with you and picture how varying degrees of drunk would make you react:
Sober - sorry man I'm straight and not interested Tipsy - "nooo I'm not intetesssted" Out of it - "where are we goinnng" Almost blackout- "agg thenxjkmd dkxkdm" Blackout - just silence

There is no level of intoxication at which I would consent to sex with another man. >

I think that's the point they were trying to make. At a certain number of drinks, "hell no" sounds more like "emnh ahg xthn" to everyone else. 
Like, one of my scariest drunk moments was at this party where a dude kept kissing me forcefully. I was trying to tell him no and push him off. But between the alcohol and the xanax I could barely move. It was like the type of unpleasantness you feel when you're dead tired and some annoying person keeps trying to wake you up... except with the added threat of creepy dude doing sex stuff. It was like I was locked into my body but still somehow kinda aware that bad stuff was happening. >

Keep in mind that many legal system don't say that being any level of drunk removes consent, but a level of drunk to the point where you really have no control of your actions. You practically have to be unconscious/delirious drunk. If you were drunk enough for you to not legally consent to sex, you would probably be too drunk to even get in a car under your own power, let alone operate it. You would be too drunk to use a computer properly to buy stock, let alone have the ability to even consider that. It is very doubtful that you would be able to assault a person while that level of drunk, since you would be near unconscious.
Also, this is a false comparison. All the examples you provides are about how a drunk person is or is not responsible for the damage they cause. A drunk person failing to consent to sex is about something that happens to them. 


Person A (drunk) hits B (sober). B is harmed, and so A is responsible. 


Person A (sober) hits B (drunk). B is harmed, and so A is responsible. 


The formula does not change depending on who is drunk and who is not. It does not really matter who is drunk, but who is inflicting harm vs. who is receiving harm. >


Also, this is a false comparison.

I disagree with that because I disagree with this:

something that happens to them.

A drunk person can definitely be the pursuer/agitator. Also, that the formula for assault remains consistent despite alcohol is part of the inconsistency of alcohol or general lack of sobriety as the rule juxtaposed to the exception.
Interesting point about the level of intoxication though I feel it was exaggerated and irrelevant. Extremely intoxicated/blackout drunk people can still do all those things at the level of intoxication that they could not longer give legal consent and in every case except a legal contract are still responsible for everything they do.