>


The answer is that it's not a meaningful question. 
OK, sure, it's an important question.

Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.
/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. >


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. >

This answer completely side skirts the issue to reiterate the foundation I laid in the post. >

All of the examples you provided are of an intoxicated person acting as the perpetrator of a crime or bad decision that harms themselves or another person. If I get into a car or buy bad stocks, no one else can be blamed for the results of my actions.
What I think you're missing is that when a sober person is part of the equation the responsibility shifts to them because there is a significant power imbalance. In a situation where there is a transaction between two people and one is significantly impaired, the risk of the impaired person being taken advantage of is unacceptably high. It is the responsibility of the sober person to wait until the other is capable of consenting before engaging in the transaction. I'm using the word "transaction" intentionally, because this logical framework applies to more things than just sex (such as contracts). 
As another example, let's look at the laws around Statutory Rape. Imagine a 14 year old wanted to have sex with a 30 year old. The situation is consensual, the 14 year old is pursuing the other person, and they seem to know what they want. Why is this illegal? Because society has decided that children and teenagers are not fully capable of giving consent due to the fact that their brains are not fully developed. The 30 year old knows better, the 14 year old does not, and therefore it is their responsibility to say no. >

Not all of the examples. Plus I'm not really considering statutory rape as the base of my thoughts on this matter is that a person is responsible for the alcohol they consume. >

The analogy about statutory rape seems apt because the key point here is really about responsibility. And for an additional point with emphasis, shared responsibility. As there are more than one person involved with the issue of concern.
So I guess to try to reframe your examples, how about making them involve more than one person? Like say for your example about drunk driving?
Consider a scenario where a person in a bar had given their keys to a friend. Yet when they found themselves drunk, said person asked friend for the keys so that they can drive home.
Assuming you are that friend, what would your responsibility be for such a scenario? Should you oblige their request as alcohol should not create an exception for consent? Damn whatever the repercussions could be. You won't be at fault if you give it to them. They asked for it. Whatever happens, happens. That's on them. No take backs.
So do you see the possible problem with the position?
Anyway, IMO, a blanket statement is seldom helpful as context will always surely vary. However, considering the framing that any decisions while drunk will usually lead to some form of regret? Well, as a sober party that can have part in preventing such developments, why should you continue to oblige and also consent to such behaviour that may lead to repercussions? Isn't erring on the side of caution a reasonable position? >

First, to be clear, having a single drink does not mean you are not able to consent to sex. Usually, when people say you aren't able to consent it's when you get to a level of drunkenness where it is readily and obviously apparent to everyone that you're significantly intoxicated and aren't making rational decisions. If you just get a bit tipsy, everyone generally agrees that consent is still possible. 
So given that, the main difference here is that someone else is taking the action. All the examples you listed are things you did when drunk. If you do something bad while intoxicated, you can't give a defense of "I wasn't in control of myself" in general because you are responsible for knowing what happens to you on alcohol; otherwise, every single person could defuse responsibility for anything by just getting drunk beforehand. It would be untenable. "I didn't mean to kill the person, I just know I get really angry and have poor impulse control when drunk" should obviously not fly as a defense. 
In contrast, sex involves more than one person or it's masturbation. Presumably, the person have sex with you is sober and is therefore responsible for knowing that having sex with someone who is extremely drunk is not okay. And, again, to be clear, it's generally agreed that this applies specifically to people who are obviously extremely impaired. Having one drink and being tipsy and a bit adventurous does not mean you aren't able to give consent. Slurring your speech and not being able to walk without stumbling pretty clearly do. >

If your wife goes to dinner orders 2 bottles of wine and fucks someone you are not having the “baby you couldn’t consent 😭” talk. >

I mean, there would probably be a conversation about not getting that drunk if that's how she acted while drunk. That doesn't change the fact that whoever had sex with this hypothetical wife shouldn't have done so if she got that drunk. There's nothing inconsistent in multiple people doing different things wrong for different reasons. >

So if you have a wife and she fucks someone at dinner it’s a conversation ? There’s no way you believe this lol >

This example doesn't present any inherent contradiction because social consequences vs. legal consequences may be different for the same action.
Mainly, this doesn't apply because people should ethically be allowed to enter or exit a relationship for any reason, not simply for actions performed with full, informed consent. >

If what you are saying is true, then it would be completely legal to get you shitfaced and have you sign over your house, your car, your bank accounts, and everything else to me.   
Do you believe that is an acceptable outcome? >

If your wife cheats on you drunk are you having the consent talk or the divorce talk ? >

Depends - who was it with? >

Why does it matter who it was with ? 
Your wife purchased herself X amount of drinks and is drunks. 
She fucks any of the following people no condom (let’s spice it up) 
Ex boyfriend 
Your neighbor 
Coworker 
Your friend 
Her friend 
Random guy at the bar 
Professional 
Are you having the divorce talk or the “baby you couldn’t consent 😭” talk ? >

Hey you asked the question.  
If she got drunk and had sex with Robert Downey Jr, I would react differently than if she got drunk and fucked my dad. >

If your wife goes to your neighbors house with 2 bottles of wine and gets piped out are you having the consent talk or the divorce talk ? What if she does this every week ? Has she been sexually assaulted every week ? >

Is she blackout drunk, or just tipsy? White girl wasted? >

“Shitfaced” the word you used. Please answer the question >

If she is shitfaced, then I am not having the divorced talk. I am having the "you were raped by our neighbor" talk. >

Just to make sure I understand. 
Your wife goes to your neighbors house with 2 bottles of wine. She drinks one and fucks him she cheated. But if she waits until she drinks the other one she was assaulted? You are honestly saying this is your belief ?
Edit: this is fun. 
If your wife is drunk and she grabs your neighbor she assaulted him. If your wife is drunk and she grabs your neighbors Dick he assaulted her ? >

Honestly, it depends.
There are people that follow some sort of "1 drop rule" where there can be no consent where there is alcohol.
Then there's dudes who draw dicks on some folks faces. Normally you wouldn't let someone draw a dick on your face. Not even at the county fair I'd bet. But you can be drunk enough that you wouldn't even know who drew it on you.  
Drawing a dick takes some time and the person drawing it has to be sober to some extent. Now, if something as meticulous and time consuming as drawing a dick on your face can be done, someone can also put a dick in your ass. I repeat, you wouldn't even know who drew it on you.
Can you call either of those things(Dick drawing and butt stuff) a consensual act between two adults?
Not a rhetorical question. >

In your hypotheticals of facial dick drawing, where is the indication that there was any consent?  You seem to be presenting a situation where the drawee is incapacitated.  That's quite different from two guys getting hammered and then drawing dicks on each other's faces.  As you indicated, drawing those dicks requires some level of sobriety. >

You’re not allowed to make medical decisions while intoxicated: full stop.
You’re also not allowed to claim intoxication as a defense for a crime you’ve committed. 
Rape isn’t negated by alcohol use. >

The spotlight is more so on being raped by virtue of intoxication although giving consent. You cannot overrule consent because you're drunk, yes. >


being raped by virtue of intoxication

Intoxication doesn't rape people. People rape people. >

Respectfully, you’re completely missing the point & this isn’t what is being discussed >

The problem with the analogy here is that it is conflating two separate concepts. There is the ability to give valid consent, and the potential for criminal responsibility. People casually refer to both and say whether you should be 'responsible' or not, but there are different principles in play.
If you willingly consume any intoxicating substance, you are still just as responsible for any crimes you commit as if you had been sober.
If you are sufficiently intoxicated, you are not capable of offering valid consent. Having sex with a person who does not or cannot consent is a crime. Having sex when you are drunk is not a crime (unless it is also with someone who does not give valid consent) so there is nothing for you to be 'responsible' for in the way that there is with drunk driving or something similar. >

This is semantics

If you are sufficiently intoxicated, you are not capable of offering valid consent.

If you are sufficiently intoxicated, you are not capable of ~~offering valid consent.~~ driving either, and yet would be held responsible for it. So, why shouldn't you be responsible for sex too despite being unable to consent to it? >


If you are sufficiently intoxicated, you are not capable of driving either.

Right. Because there is a law specifically saying "If you are intoxicated and you drive a vehicle, that is a crime." If you commit that crime, you are held responsible for it.
There is not any law stating "If you are intoxicated enough that you are not able to consent, and you attempt to offer consent to someone anyway, that is a crime." so you have not committed any crime which you need to be held responsible for. >


you have not committed any crime which you need to be held responsible for

But you have committed an act that you need to be held responsible for.  Whether that act was a crime or not is irrelevant.  Are you responsible for the actions you take while drunk... or not? >

Read my other analogy here.
Are minors responsible for the actions they take or not? The answer is that it's not a meaningful question. The principle is not that there needs to be one standard set of responsibility for "acts". >


Are minors responsible for the actions they take or not? The answer is that it's not a meaningful question.

What?  That's not the answer, lmao.  Human beings' lives hang in the balance of that question, of course it's meaningful.  The answer to that question could determine if a 14-year-old spends the rest of his life in prison, or spends four years in juvie.  
Just looking at current events: NYC yesterday thought that question was so meaningful that they debated it and determined that anyone under 12 years old in the city is not responsible for any crimes they commit. >

OK, sure, it's an important question. You're focused on the wrong part.
"Is a person who is (X) held responsible for crimes they commit?" is one question. "Is a person who is (X) capable of offering valid consent for sex?" is another question. My example clearly illustrates that those two questions do not need to have the same answer. One can be yes, and the other can be no.
If (X) is "a minor (above the state's minimum age to try someone as an adult but below the legal age of consent)" then clearly, the first answer can possibly be yes, and the second answer is definetly no. If (X) is "incapacitated by alcohol" then the answers are also yes to the first question and no to the second.
The latter one isn't any more of a double standard than the first.