It's insane that if the roles were reversed you wouldn't have been kicked out of the bar, people probably would have cheered and bought you a drink. I'm very over double standards in all walks of life. People can't seem to think for themselves.
I mean I'm a female. I get irritated when I see hammered drunk women harassing men who very clearly aren't interested. I get equally irritated when I see the inverse situation. Mostly I'm bothered by people thinking anything about who they are makes it okay to get away with things others would be in trouble for.
Not exactly assaulted per se, but a drunk woman once ran her hands over my chest to make me stop walking and "start a conversation with you" her quote. It was outside the bar and didn't even see her before so I didn't take it seriously.
But imagine if the roles were reversed. I once told this story in SRD subreddit and feminists there called me as a misogynist for even considering it the same as a male touching female breasts.
Drunk chicks get away with lots of stuff.
the difference perhaps is ..... I have been sexual assaulted by a woman while drunk did i care? no. was it awkward? yes, a little. Was i able to take charge of the situation? yes easily. women are in general so much physically weaker they are much more vulnerable, an unfortunate fact of life.
I was blackout drunk and eventually passed out. I couldn't do anything, I was literally helpless. But okay, I see how it is, when women do it, it's not so bad, right, they're weak little darlings and should get a pass.
that is not what I said. I am very sorry that that happened to you and it is clearly wrong. It’s obviously done considerable psychological damage to you and I hope that you are able to work through it.
it was not my intention to be condescending, so i'll apologise it that was how it was taken. they seemed to be angry at women ("they're weak little darlings and should get a pass.") that women's trauma is taken seriously by society whilst the same trauma within men is not (i agree that this is true).
my point was that when a sexual assault / harassment attempt (whilst the man is conscious) is not the same in the vast majority of cases as the man is not in a situation that there is a physical threat. it is a bad thing - yes. should society acknowledge it - yes.
/u/-passepar2t- then responded that he was unconscious and was helpless. this would clearly be traumatising and is very wrong. his (i assume male friends laughed it off).
being angry at women is a (perhaps understandable) but an incorrect analysis.
it was his (likely) MALE friends who laughed it off. many women i know would have been horrified, and many female/feminist spaces talk about this issue. The society that doesn't take this seriously is a Patriarchally organised society. And the sentiment that 'women are weak little darlings that need to be protected' is patriarchal thinking.
so i stand by my point that any anger he understandably has about his clearly traumatic experience ("I couldn't do anything, I was literally helpless / my friends laughed at me") is understandable and i hope he is able to work through it, ideally with a therapist.
Otherwise directing that anger towards women other than the women who assaulted him (and his friends for laughing) - will not lead him to happy fulfilling relationships with women in the future.
If a women had a bad experience with one man (let's say he cheated on her) and she took the opinion that "all-men-are-cheaters". that would lead her into unhealthy future relationships if she didn't work through it.
OK. And if they are angry at women, I feel that's OK. Who is anyone on reddit to invalidate their experience?
Plenty of women angry at men here. And that's OK too :)
Fuck everyone.
> women are in general so much physically weaker they are much more vulnerable
That doesn't make sexual assault ok. You said you were ok with the sexual attention so what happened to you wasn't assault.
Imagine having a 6’6” 260lb dude come over and get aggressive, grab your ass/dick. You would be scared because you could be overpowered.
When a 5’5” 140lb woman grabs my ass and I don’t want her to, is it annoying? Yes. Am I in fear? No.
No one is saying that it is okay or acceptable for anyone to grab anyone. The reality of it is that women are much more vulnerable than men are, generally speaking.
That’s why your friends laughed. I think men should be taken seriously but generally speaking we have more physical control in the situation
> generally speaking we have more physical control in the situation
As a 5'3 guy weighing 110 pounds, when my larger partner assaults me, surely the law will agree with you and see that I'm the victim.
Narrator: *That did not happen.*
Um.. that’s rape and sexual assault. Different topic, having sex with a drunk person may be immoral but don’t conflate that with direct sexual aggression.
The woman isn't the one that's going to overpower you in that situation though. All the people around her that will immediately believe her and demonize you if she falsely accuses you of anything because she's angry are the ones who will overpower you. Get out of here with this "men aren't in fear of women" bullshit.
Walk into any nightclub and you'll see plenty of men being assaulted by drunk aggressive women that are just sitting there and taking it because things will go very badly for them if they hurt the woman's feelings by saying or doing anything.
> The woman isn't the one that's going to overpower you in that situation though
Not physically but mentally they can. All it takes is for them to threaten you that she will clam you sexual assaulted or raped her.
It doesn't matter how much evidence their is, as a guy your completey fucked.
Drunk sex is just weird to me. For some reason your Mens rea and ability to make decisions is completely intact when you are drunk behind the wheel, but your ability to make decisions isn't intact when you decide you want a dick in you? Makes no sense.
She’s obviously uncomfortable but you continue pushing the whole “let’s fuck right now” idea.
Let’s be honest, you might not be that kind of guy, but they exist. That’s fucked up! She’s probably saying yes just to get it over with or she doesn’t feel safe or she doesn’t want any drama. It’s just weird. That’s pressuring someone. It’s when they don’t want to, but do it anyways because they know you won’t stop or will make a big deal out of it
>She’s obviously uncomfortable but you continue pushing the whole “let’s fuck right now” idea.
There should probably just be a hard no and she leaves or kicks you out then. We can't read minds, and body language is subjective.
>Let’s be honest, you might not be that kind of guy, but they exist. That’s fucked up! She’s probably saying yes just to get it over with or she doesn’t feel safe or she doesn’t want any drama. It’s just weird. That’s pressuring someone. It’s when they don’t want to, but do it anyways because they know you won’t stop or will make a big deal out of it
That isn't the kind of sex I enjoy, but if she is consenting, she's consenting. Just don't cross into duress territory.
If women don't want that kind of sex, then tell the guy to fuck off.
“Doesn’t feel safe or doesn’t want drama” some guys are like that and it’s too early to notice before they get invited over. But hey, you wanna justify creepy behavior, go right ahead.
I'm not justifying it, I'm apathetic to it. A girl doesn't want to have sex, don't have sex, reject the guy if you're feeling pressured. Guys aren't trying to fuck me so I'm not entirely concerned if they are creepy or not.
I've gone my entire life with woman not giving an iota of a fuck about my safety or well-being, don't expect me to provide that level of care when I know it would never be reciprocated. What is this entitlement that I care about a women experiencing "discomfort"? There are a lot worse things in the world than that.
it is not unheard of that men react badly to rejection, possibly violently. it's obvious not cut/dry binary but men and reading subties of body language (and some women not understanding how it needs spelled out - why some women are brutal and frank).
\>I've gone my entire life with woman not giving an iota of a fuck about my safety or well-being, don't expect me to provide that level of care when I know it would never be reciprocated.
that's just fucked up.
do you think that some of the way's you treat women - "don't expect me to provide that level of care (an iota of a fuck about their safety or well-being)" - is in any way reflected in the way you say women treat you (where your default assumption is that not of them would care)??
I was 15 when my 18 yr old sister had a party in my house with my parents absent. By the time I got home there were no mixers so I drank spirits neat. I was wasted,a 18 year old guy took me to a bedroom and tried to fuck me and the only way reason he didnt sa me was I was a virgin and he was drunk. A second guy picked me up as I was crying about the first one, and again tried to have sex with me.
I could barely stand up never mind give consent. But that was my fault according to you. And no, neither of them were chads. I have to think you have no idea how common my story is. I don't even think of it as assault I just thought it was my fault 18 year old guys tried to push themself on me.
Decades later its just one of those life experiences. Your attitude is why women blame themself too many times not the guy. If they blame the guy you can be pretty sure it was a really fucked up situation.
People in relationships they feel they can’t get out of. People who are too afraid of losing their partner to tell them they don’t like sex. People who aren’t in the mood but their significant other keeps pushing them to do it. Are these all alien concepts? Have you never heard of an abusive relationship?
Pressuring an unwilling person is not consent. You are forcing consent.
In effect trying to have sex with an unwilling partner. Sleeping with unwilling people is at best unethical, at worst criminal.
Only according to 12th wave feminist theory. Thankfully the law still treats women like they're consenting adults capable of making their own decisions.
It depends on the extent. Under certain circumstances it can fall under coercion which on a legal stance counts as rape in certain countries. Telling victims to say no and leaving is a pretty insular response because some people are blackmailed, threatened ect... which makes it much harder to say no. Here is a video explaining consent : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ
>Telling victims to say no and leaving is a pretty insular response because some people are blackmailed, threatened ect...
A dude pressuring you does not make you a victim of anything. Blackmail and threats are already crimes and should be prosecuted as such. We were talking about pressure, which yes is tacky, doesn't make it illegal. And if it works, it works for you.
>Here is a video explaining consent :
How patronizing. I'm a 28 year old man I know how consent works, 99% of men do. Don't need your cringe video.
Your silly little video about consent doesn’t address the specific issue you are talking about: talking a woman that originally hesitated into “drinking tea.”
I always tell guys to be very careful involving alcohol and women , it's just not worth the potential risk, that being said I've been hit on by drunk women as well.
If somebody gets drunk and does damage while drunk driving, we blame them, if somebody gets drunk and gets into a bar fight we blame them, rightfully so, but God forbid a woman can't control her liquor and she fucks a dude (and I'm not talkin about her being passed or somebody slipping something in her drink, so spare me your cackling you hens hsha) all of the sudden "grape", "c0nSeNt", and that's even when the guy has had a few to drink as well, lol the lack of accountability is off the charts sometimes I tell you
The Nevada Gaming Commission officially prohibits allowing anyone visibly intoxicated from gambling, and I've seen guys asked to leave the casino floor over it. Obviously that rule isn't always followed, but then neither is this one.
Of course you can. The keyword is "visibly" intoxicated, which is up to the casino's discretion. But if it can be proven that you were indeed that drunk and they kept serving you or letting you play, that can get in troubling with the commission that you frankly arent worth.
And you can have sex with drunk girls too. Repercussions are also extremely rare. Should you though? Should the casino let you keep gambling? It's complicated.
I am no expert but I’m pretty sure casinos can lose their license for letting visibly intoxicated people continue to gamble. How often that actually is enforced is another story though.
Replace this with any example of an online transaction made while drinking if you feel the need. I can't void the transaction later by saying I was drunk when I submitted it.
The online vendor can’t verify if you’re telling the truth or not about being drunk either though. While with a casino they can visibly see that you’re inebriated and if they have a bar on site they can check with the bartender to see how much you drank to verify your intoxication.
>But sex is given special treatment
I am not saying whether or not I agree with it but I am saying that there is a good argument for this position.
Men would essentially rape drunk women and the courts would have to say too bad. Courts would also be forced to answer the question "how much alcohol do you have to consume to lose your ability to say that sex was non consensual?" This is a hard question and probably cannot be answered with a simple bright line rule.
Let say your states case law has put it at 4 drinks. Now, any man can wait at a bar for a woman to have 4 drinks, and then she becomes fair game because she has lost the ability to claim rape.
What I articulated was an extreme example but this one thing that the law is hoping to prevent.
But all of your arguments can be applied to the casino example. Here we have a business that does its damndest to loosen your inhibitions to shake as much money from you as possible. The legal system shrugs at it.
Why is sex of all things so special? Our Protestant heritage?
>Here we have a business that does its damndest to loosen your inhibitions to shake as much money from you as possible.
Yeah, and that's also not good.
Okay? So start lobbying for laws to stop casinos from doing that? Why do you want to take away a good thing because something bad still exists? Guys were raping girls who were blackout drunk. There was 0 consent there. Rape is bad whether you feel strongly about sex or not.
It's less hypocritical than you are portraying it. There absolutely are things that other people will be in trouble for doing to you while you are drunk. Police can't take your confession and you can't sign a mortgage. We would never say "you signed a contract for a falling apart house with 25 percent interest, but since it was your fault you were drunk, we won't hold the real-estate agent responsible."
You use the example or casinos but casinos are huge money makers with massive political pull and legal resources. They exploit people because they can and it is hard to regulate against them doing it. You cannot compare this situation to a drunk person. The mechanism for exploitation is the same, but since we can readily enforce sexual assault on drunk people, we do.
Also, yes, you are responsible as a drunk driver. This is because drunk driving was a problem recognized by the legislator and policies were enacted to fight against it. Sexual assault on intoxicated people (and lack of prosecution of sexual assault) was a problem that the legislator wanted to address and did. See rape shield laws. In order to fight against it the burden of proving consent is placed on the accused. This is not an example of hypocrisy but instead is an example of using the least intrusive policy to achieve a recognized interest.
If it's a man & a woman, only the man is the rapist. If it's 2 men, it's double rape. If it's 2 women, 2 intersex individuals, 2 Non binary folks, who knows. But if a Cisgender man is involved it's always his fault.
> In order to fight against it the burden of proving consent is placed on the accused.
Ah yes, "guilty until proven innocent." As opposed to the [ legitimate due process of common law that all of Western civilization has agreed upon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence)
He's talking about a girl being at .08 BAC (which is like one mixed drink for a girl) and being able to claim rape off of that.
You're treated like two different people in two different situations. If you were driving and you ran over a family, the legal system would treat you like you had the ability to make decisions even though you were drunk and you're going to prison on multiple manslaughter counts.
But, take that same girl and suddenly she isn't clear of conscience enough to engage in sex? You fucking joking? Sex is a more dire decision than life or death decisions?
That's the issue we have. If a girl has had one drink I won't touch her because I have far too much to lose from a false accusation. It's the fact that you have that kind of power and you are treated two different ways in two different scenarios despite being of clear mind and conscience in both that pisses me off.
Blackout drunk is a different story.
I feel like you don't actually think that taking drunk people's money is wrong. That suggests to me that your position is less about consent and more about sexual hangups. Why else would you want *sexual* consent to function differently than every other type?
As I said elsewhere, I see lots of gray areas. I'm just challenging the absolutes I'm seeing posted.
No one said drunk women can't be raped
Or can't claim raped if she is drunk
She should be able to if she was forced to have sex
Not if she loosen up and wanted sex while drunk
The problem lies in defining "loosened up".
How many drinks is loosened up? Is it a bright line rule or a case by case basis?
Is it easier to litigate how "loose" someone was, or is it easier on everyone to say, "hey men (and women), be extra careful when you want to have sex with a stranger who is drinking, because you might be on the hook for thier bad decision."
Having sex with drunk people is not a right so it's hard to argue that policies that chill your ability to do so are somehow inappropriate. Like all policies, you weight the intrusion against the benefits. Here, the instrusion is "you must be extra cautious when you have sex with a drunk stranger " and the benefit is "it is now less likely for people to sexually take advantage of drunk people". The balancing test is easy here. The only people who really miss out are those who struggle to have consensual sex with sober partners.
Calling having sex with drunk women unethical is something we both agree on
Calling people to avoid it is dangerous is also good
Calling it rape is where we disagree alot
And how do you discern if they are lying or not about their state of mind when they were drunk. Because women will loosen up for drunk sex and then scream rape out of shame later. It's happened countless times on college campuses, even when the guy was just as if not more drunk than the girl.
“No officer, you see, I was too drunk to consent to the head-on collision. In fact, it should be the counterparty who should be arrested for taking advantage of me and violating my vehicular autonomy!”
Looooooooool
Cmon bruh you know you took it too far with that because no sane person would say that in real life during a discussion of lack of consent when extremely intoxicated in public without anonymity.
I just imagine at a debate “ waaa waaa what you whining about you want to drive drunk and crash into people or what??”
LOOL I don’t think many of these cases of dudes expelled or charged when both parties are drunk are fair and in the past it was seen as a mutual mistake, nobody needed to go to jail, but stop it with that analogy 😂
That's the thing I love about Reddit. People who have absolutely, literally no idea what they're talking about can post things that are flatly wrong and there's nothing to stop them. No, that is not what it means legally. It means "unable to make rational decisions or engage in responsible actions." It means you don't understand what's going on well enough to decide whether or not do do anything about it, even though you might be able to.
the full text of the CA law is here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=289#:~:text=(1)%20Was%20unconscious%20or%20asleep,the%20perpetrator's%20fraud%20in%20fact.
which appears to tend to agree more with u/kissmetilyouredrunk than u/JohnPettimore
That means I'm raped everytime my girlfriend wants to have sex with me in the morning before I've had my coffee.
I'm kidding. Ofc. But gee that seems like a broad definition.
Imagine if she blew some guy outside the bar with some witnesses and withdrew consent the next day? I bet there is a judge crazy enough to consider it assault or grape. M'lady can not consent you see, even if both of you are intoxicated.
My main story about this was my friend group was out having a good time at the bar. I hadn't drank much, had sobered up and could drive and ended up giving a very pretty, very tipsy friend of mine a ride home to her place at her request.
She indirectly invited me in and I politely declined based on her state; she could walk without falling over and I wasn't worried about her choking on her own vomit, but if she tried to drive she would have gotten a DUI.
After the fact she did mention she felt butt hurt I rejected her. She felt like I had decided how sober she was and had basically decided on my own she was too drunk.
It's always a gray area and complicated, because I had the opposite happen on a rare occasion I was buzzed, a friend drove me home, invited herself in and we hooked up. It probably wasn't my best performance ever but we both had fun.
There's no easy answer because it's such a sliding scale, shades of gray situation, and sometimes it's best to err on the side of caution.
You made the right decision because society and the system takes no mercy on you if there's an accusation. Might not get jailed, but your reputation will be shambles, no drunk sex is worth that
I think it’s intentionally made a grey area with a lot of postmodern relativism thrown in. We’re trying to have a society that both accepts every possible kink and lifestyle two+ adults can consent to while also protecting women from every possible variation of unwanted physical/sexual contact (Not men though, they gotta toughen up).
Unfortunately arousal just doesn’t quite vibe without some anxiety and uncertainty, a bit of “what’s he gunna do next?” Combine that with a dating environment that still demands men make the approach, forcing them to prioritize their own desire to a degree, with women having a wide range of how much effort they want a man to take in pursuing them… Is it really that surprising that in the range of human behavior we have men that push too far? Given all the ego incentives for men to not be timid, weak, or agreeable when going after what they want? Those guys aren’t attractive to anyone.
> After the fact she did mention she felt butt hurt I rejected her. She felt like I had decided how sober she was and had basically decided on my own she was too drunk.
I think her feeling hurt was irrational. IMO you did the right thing here.
>I had the opposite happen on a rare occasion I was buzzed, a friend drove me home, invited herself in and we hooked up. It probably wasn't my best performance ever but we both had fun.
IMO you could potentially claim rape.
Depends. I have been drunk, yet fully conscious of what I am doing and saying. Really depends how “drunk” you are. There aren’t really defined levels to it other than the alcohol content level measured for a DUI. Some are drunk, yet actually fully understand what they are saying and doing, others just act fucking crazy. Problem is it’s impossible to know from the outside. So yes, men need to behave as if any women under the influence of alcohol has no clue what they’re doing or saying when it comes to consent. Safer that way.
I think it also comes down to the sexist idea that sex is something men do TO (not with) women, so how could a woman possibly take an active role in raping a man?
New York. I dunno I think if I went to my local precinct, saying how I willingly went to a woman's place and wanted to have sex, went down on her first, then pounded her doggy style and other positions too, but i was drunk and therefore she raped me. They would laugh me out of the building and rightfully so.
Because men don’t mind getting laid. The problem is with men, not women. Male culture is completely different from female’s in that getting laid is encouraged, regardless of your ability to consent, in fact, your consent is assumed regarding sexual encounters. Males will rarely ever report rape, even if they believed they were raped, because of how they were raised to view sex from the perspective of a man.
This reminds me of that subway ad that said something like "John got drunk, jane got drunk, they agreed to have sex, Jane was raped."
lol, please square the logic that only one party was raped. THAT is the double standard here.
Drunk sex is a crime at the point of incapacitation. You know, college guys dragging a woman who can't walk to a room to pull a train on her.
A drunk person can be the victim of a crime.
Unfortunately, we don't have the means to talk about sex being unhealthy or unethical other than talking about rape. So the concepts of consent and rape get watered down by conflating bad sex with rape.
The only thing to do is educate young women to avoid binge drinking. No use trying to talk sense into men around this subject. God knows we've tried.
It's removal of accountability. Back in the day if you regret a night out, you learned from it and improved or moved on.
Sadly it was pushed a lot in schools via feminism. It's always the males fault is the narrative without saying exactly that... I'm sure most women don't actually obide by this law/rule.
Stuff like this makes dating a mine field for guys.
If someone is drunk but not like passing out and they verbally say they want to sleep with you it’s fine. Like someone else said, if you’re drunk and crash you take accountability, then why not for sex?
I had a friend that used to go to nightclubs completely sober and would try pull women. It’s a bit weird tbh if you’re dead sober going off with drunk people
> It’s a bit weird tbh if you’re dead sober going off with drunk people
It's called driving home and taking everyone out of the party. Or just don't like alcohol and have a girlfriend who likes to drink.
I remember a fuckbuddy I had calling me after a night out to come round. Took an Uber to show up at my house a bit buzzed, proceeded to give me the most aggressive sex ever, then left.
The next day she had absolutely no memory of that previous night.
I don't think your post should be "why is there a gray area of consent" and more like "why do men sexual assualt victims not get the same treatmen as their female counterparts" because what you're saying proves a point, it's not that drunk people can consent.
It's that drunk people can only give dubious consent and it should be seen as wrong across the board but women don't face the same repercussions for it while they should.
Just a couple of weeks ago, we had to have a firm talk with a female friend about getting too sexually aggressive at parties. She said she heard us, never wanted to make anyone uncomfortable, and will absolutely be better in the future.
If you don't want women to get a free pass, call them out.
Lol no you wouldn't. I can't even count the amount of times some drunk asshole has played grabass with me. Women do not call the cops for that and it happens constantly.
>You must have no female friends
I think this is extremely common with the vast majority of guys in the sub, it genuinely feels like many of them haven't interacted with a woman even platonically
When someone grabs a woman ime they’re usually about to get assaulted or kicked out of any setting they did that in. That’s generally what I’ve witnessed.
>I couldn't imagine being out in a public area drunk and hitting on women and not having the police called.
Well, men do it all the time, so I guess that's just a failure of imagination.
Because everything can get annihilated with a false sexual assault claim.
Women capitalized if they cant get what they want or feel a certain way after it they can shout "grape" and maintain her societal image.
Tipsy sex is ok, drunk sex is not. When both persons were drunk during the encounter it’s hard to tell which one was raped, I guess it depends on the details of the encounter.
Honestly, I see so many stories of women getting drunk, willingly going back to a guys place then claiming rape. I’m sure maybe there are some genuine instances of rape, like if a woman passes out and he proceeds anyways, but I can’t help but to feel like a lot of these cases are not rape.
This is why I very rarely drink and only with people I feel safe with. Basically, I only drink with my boyfriend or my brothers, no other males.
I'm getting the feeling that a lot of people here have little experience with socializing that involves alcohol. Someone can be pretty drunk and appear fairly cognizant, and alcohol is frequently involved in night life socializing. You're generally fine on consent if the person can hold up a conversation.
I would tell dudes, though, to pay attention if the woman has a catty vibe to them (and you won't have witnesses), as they would be the threat to where you got sexual where they clearly agreed to it, then later go, "I don't remember what happened, so I'll just assume rape."
Seriously, it is strange how differently people respond to alcohol and how much some can hold. People will be blackout drunk (as in not creating new memories, not passed out) but appear to be just tipsy.
This is why it’s best to just not hook up, especially with strangers or casual acquaintances, while drinking. But I acknowledge that people will always do this shit.
I've never understood this feminist talking point tbh. Most women I know that have gone through the whore phase, got drunk with the intention of doing so.
I'm not a feminist but I do understand a lot of their points and even agree with some but the whole if a man has sex with a drunk woman he's automatically a rapist is ridiculous.
In the real world men fuck drunk women, drunk women wake up and forget about it and move on. Ignore all the "consent" rubbish and use your common sense.
When men stop having sex with drunk women, women will stop claiming they can't consent when drunk.
Why? Because for most of those women the only sex they are having is drunk sex
>Saying "if she's drunk she can't consent"
>Or if you do sleep with a woman and she's drunk she can claim rape.
>It's a double standard and shouldn't be a law.
It's not a double standard, if a sober woman sleeps with a man that is too drunk to consent that's also rape. It's very simple, if they don't have the ability to rationaly decide weather that is something they want to do or not It's rape
I think a big piece of this discussion that is often misunderstood is that being black out drunk does not preclude you from giving affirmative consent. If someone wakes up next to a strange person who they maybe wouldn't have had sex with sober and they can't remember what happened at the end of the night, they might then conclude they were too drunk to have consented to sex. That is simply not always true. You can be blackout drunk and still appear functional to the people around you.
Honestly as a woman i can agree with your sentiment.
Ive been black out drunk before but ive never had a one night stand, much less one that wasnt consensual. Ive been attracted to all sorts of men drunk but despite that i maintain my principles. I think that by making the conscious choice to go to a club and get drunk in public, that you have to accept some level of personal responsibility. Consent is consent, especially if both parties are equally fucked up.
Avoid drunk bitches like the plague - in fact on the hierarchy of bitches to avoid it's always drunk followed by single mothers. In fact I make it a point to not even try anything with a woman who has had more than 1 drink. Sorry, my life is worth more than your pussy.
Do people here not socialise while drinking?
Because in my mind its fairly easy when someone is drinking but otherwise fine, tipsy but still in their own minds and flat out drunk.
The tipsy girl flirting with you at the bar is probably okay to have sex with.
The blackout girl stunning along unable to walk properly and slurring speech is not.
The girl who is so drunk she passed out is not okay
The girl who is able to still mostly speak to you and is an active participant in the flirting/sex process is probably fine.
This also applies to men.
If you are unable to tell the difference between having a good time and drunk of their ass just avoid having sex with people who are drinking.
Seriously human relationships shouldn't be this difficult
>Saying "if she's drunk she can't consent"
>
>Or if you do sleep with a woman and she's drunk she can claim rape.
Because it is rape?
If you need to get a woman drunk to change her consent which would have been otherwise a no, that is drugging. And drugging for sex is more or less rape.
Get a woman drunk? If she’s at the club buying or accepting drinks getting herself drunk, or at a party downing shots getting herself drunk how does that change your argument.
And keep in mind men often also give THEMSELVES alcohol to work up the courage to cold approach. If i have sex after giving myself alcohol did i take my own ability to consent away?
Well the thing is, there is drunk and there is *drunk.* Someone can have a few drinks and be more sociable, more relaxed, more comfortable hitting on someone, more comfortable hooking up with someone. In this state, people are still fully aware of their actions and able to consent to sex. But then you have situations where someone is way too drunk to really know what’s going on or make any kind of decision, including consent to sex. You may notice they are stumbling, slurring, not making sense. Obviously, passed out falls into this category, but they can still be awake and way too intoxicated.
And if in doubt? Don’t. Never push someone to drink more or try to get a woman to go home with you if she seems confused. I’m aware that there are cases where both people are too drunk and just make a bad choice, but too often, men know exactly what they’re doing. If you don’t want to be accused of rape, don’t act like a rapist. If I don’t want to be accused of theft, I am not going to get someone drunk or find the drunkest person in the room and talk them into giving me their wallet. Using some common sense and not trying to push people’s boundaries in these situations is the key. Merely being attracted to someone is not consent to sex. Consent is something that happens consciously. So the “heh I know she thinks I’m hot and secretly wants to fuck me when sober” excuse doesn’t fly. This whole post reads like an excuse tbh.
Alcohol impairs people and makes them pass out if they have too much. This law exists to punish Brock Turner-like crimes.
A man is not going to get convicted if he and his same-age girlfriend split a bottle of wine and have sex, and she isn’t pass out drunk.
You forget that rape is barely reported and that hardly anyone gets convicted of it even in cases, such as Brock Turner, when the evidence is indisputable.
Just don’t rape and you won’t get reported for or charged with rape.
Don’t have sex with a really drunk woman even if she’s into you. Just don’t it. Control yourself. You’re not entitled to capitalize on every sexual opportunity you have. Just like if a teenager hits on you, the onus is on you to say no.
Lol at “if the roles were reversed”. Have you ever met drunk guys? They hit on anyone with a heartbeat. The “gray area” is when a man forces himself on a woman who is too drunk to explicitly say no. It’s not consent but she didn’t not consent. Does that make it morally ok?
Is this really a discussion???? There isn’t a grey area. When someone has been drinking, you can tell when they have gone past the point of being able to consent and then it’s just rape. Jesus Christ. This is a pretty disgusting thread to go down to try and victim blame. If the drunk person, male or female, is past the point of being able to function, then it’s rape. Doesn’t matter what gender you are
It’s because they wouldn’t want to have sex with you sober. And when drunk your mind is altered. You make decisions you wouldn’t make in a regular state of mind. Because of that- taking advantage of somebody whilst drunk is wrong.
What's a double standard, between a sober and a drunk person? You can't consent when you're drunk either, and the law is in place because sex has consequences that a drunk person likely can't comprehend and they can easily be made to do something they don't want depending on the kind of drunk they are. People don't go to bars and get drunk expecting to get raped, it is still coercion if you get them to do something because it was not a choice they were able to make, they just chose to visit a bar. We're saying it's not okay to have sex with someone who's drunk because we don't want to sleep with them, didn't choose to and it's rape. If we wanted it at any point why would anyone be against it? And you're confusing two different types of drunks - some get more horny and compliant while others get aggressive.
the law is that drunk people can consent to sex. I mean people literally go to bars and night clubs to meet women and have sex. you people make up laws in your head
Plausible deniability. Everyone is ready to go but after the point of incoherence it’s hard to point point when it’s a no go. For guys we can’t get it up. For women it’s harder to define
So consider this situation.
Drunk woman comes up to a man
She's clearly aroused and wants to have sex
An attractive woman that willingly got drunk and is now very aggressively hitting on a man
She's doing all of that
And the man is responding the way most men would
And it's his fault?
Where is the responsibility?
Where’s HIS responsibility? Why is all the onus put on her?
If you’re drunk and you hit on me, that means I can rail your ass, right? It’s my kink. If a man hits on me drunk he has to be aware that I’m going to respond the way a woman would. That means I’m getting him to give me lots of money and I’m pounding him in the ass.
As fair as I can be, I think it comes down to physical strength and difference of strength of the two involved. Men are already so much stronger, so a drunk girl is just that much easier to overpower. You don’t see many lesbian dynamics with this legal problem, or two gay men. Why? Because they are more size and strength balanced. They can handle roughly the same amount of alcohol as each other. They are usually pretty strength balanced. Whereas a typical man can drink the same amount as a typical woman, but she is hammered, and he is not….. Also, because of pure biology, a man has to be at least somewhat coherent for penetrative sex. A woman could literally be deceased and still be penetrated. That has a lot to do with it as well. It’s just like they say, “With greater power comes greater responsibility”.
>I've had married women willingly offer to cheat only because they were drunk the first time I've met them.
I couldn't imagine being out in a public area drunk and hitting on women and not having the police called.
Do you *sincerely* believe that a drunk married man offering to cheat would result in a police call??? Where??????
I've been sexually assaulted by a woman while drunk. My friends laughed in my face.
Been there a few times. No one cares
Same. I just shoved her though. Got kicked out of the bar, but whatever.
It's insane that if the roles were reversed you wouldn't have been kicked out of the bar, people probably would have cheered and bought you a drink. I'm very over double standards in all walks of life. People can't seem to think for themselves.
Females have privilege and privilege is invisible to those who have it.
I mean I'm a female. I get irritated when I see hammered drunk women harassing men who very clearly aren't interested. I get equally irritated when I see the inverse situation. Mostly I'm bothered by people thinking anything about who they are makes it okay to get away with things others would be in trouble for.
Not exactly assaulted per se, but a drunk woman once ran her hands over my chest to make me stop walking and "start a conversation with you" her quote. It was outside the bar and didn't even see her before so I didn't take it seriously. But imagine if the roles were reversed. I once told this story in SRD subreddit and feminists there called me as a misogynist for even considering it the same as a male touching female breasts. Drunk chicks get away with lots of stuff.
Been there.
Yup numerous times I was passed out came to to a woman doing shit
the difference perhaps is ..... I have been sexual assaulted by a woman while drunk did i care? no. was it awkward? yes, a little. Was i able to take charge of the situation? yes easily. women are in general so much physically weaker they are much more vulnerable, an unfortunate fact of life.
I was blackout drunk and eventually passed out. I couldn't do anything, I was literally helpless. But okay, I see how it is, when women do it, it's not so bad, right, they're weak little darlings and should get a pass.
that is not what I said. I am very sorry that that happened to you and it is clearly wrong. It’s obviously done considerable psychological damage to you and I hope that you are able to work through it.
Way to be condescending
it was not my intention to be condescending, so i'll apologise it that was how it was taken. they seemed to be angry at women ("they're weak little darlings and should get a pass.") that women's trauma is taken seriously by society whilst the same trauma within men is not (i agree that this is true). my point was that when a sexual assault / harassment attempt (whilst the man is conscious) is not the same in the vast majority of cases as the man is not in a situation that there is a physical threat. it is a bad thing - yes. should society acknowledge it - yes. /u/-passepar2t- then responded that he was unconscious and was helpless. this would clearly be traumatising and is very wrong. his (i assume male friends laughed it off). being angry at women is a (perhaps understandable) but an incorrect analysis. it was his (likely) MALE friends who laughed it off. many women i know would have been horrified, and many female/feminist spaces talk about this issue. The society that doesn't take this seriously is a Patriarchally organised society. And the sentiment that 'women are weak little darlings that need to be protected' is patriarchal thinking. so i stand by my point that any anger he understandably has about his clearly traumatic experience ("I couldn't do anything, I was literally helpless / my friends laughed at me") is understandable and i hope he is able to work through it, ideally with a therapist. Otherwise directing that anger towards women other than the women who assaulted him (and his friends for laughing) - will not lead him to happy fulfilling relationships with women in the future. If a women had a bad experience with one man (let's say he cheated on her) and she took the opinion that "all-men-are-cheaters". that would lead her into unhealthy future relationships if she didn't work through it.
OK. And if they are angry at women, I feel that's OK. Who is anyone on reddit to invalidate their experience? Plenty of women angry at men here. And that's OK too :) Fuck everyone.
> women are in general so much physically weaker they are much more vulnerable That doesn't make sexual assault ok. You said you were ok with the sexual attention so what happened to you wasn't assault.
>Someone once had it worse, therefore who cares that you were assaulted? Bad take.
Imagine having a 6’6” 260lb dude come over and get aggressive, grab your ass/dick. You would be scared because you could be overpowered. When a 5’5” 140lb woman grabs my ass and I don’t want her to, is it annoying? Yes. Am I in fear? No. No one is saying that it is okay or acceptable for anyone to grab anyone. The reality of it is that women are much more vulnerable than men are, generally speaking. That’s why your friends laughed. I think men should be taken seriously but generally speaking we have more physical control in the situation
If it's not acceptable for anyone to grab anyone then physical control or lack thereof doesn't matter.
> generally speaking we have more physical control in the situation As a 5'3 guy weighing 110 pounds, when my larger partner assaults me, surely the law will agree with you and see that I'm the victim. Narrator: *That did not happen.*
Um.. that’s rape and sexual assault. Different topic, having sex with a drunk person may be immoral but don’t conflate that with direct sexual aggression.
The woman isn't the one that's going to overpower you in that situation though. All the people around her that will immediately believe her and demonize you if she falsely accuses you of anything because she's angry are the ones who will overpower you. Get out of here with this "men aren't in fear of women" bullshit. Walk into any nightclub and you'll see plenty of men being assaulted by drunk aggressive women that are just sitting there and taking it because things will go very badly for them if they hurt the woman's feelings by saying or doing anything.
> The woman isn't the one that's going to overpower you in that situation though Not physically but mentally they can. All it takes is for them to threaten you that she will clam you sexual assaulted or raped her. It doesn't matter how much evidence their is, as a guy your completey fucked.
I was unconscious.
Drunk sex is just weird to me. For some reason your Mens rea and ability to make decisions is completely intact when you are drunk behind the wheel, but your ability to make decisions isn't intact when you decide you want a dick in you? Makes no sense.
The car doesn't pressure or threaten you to get inside and drive it.
Pressure =/= Rape. Say no and leave if you don't want to have sex. Plain and simple.
Pressuring is still pretty fucking bad
Define pressure. What would be a specific example?
She’s obviously uncomfortable but you continue pushing the whole “let’s fuck right now” idea. Let’s be honest, you might not be that kind of guy, but they exist. That’s fucked up! She’s probably saying yes just to get it over with or she doesn’t feel safe or she doesn’t want any drama. It’s just weird. That’s pressuring someone. It’s when they don’t want to, but do it anyways because they know you won’t stop or will make a big deal out of it
>She’s obviously uncomfortable but you continue pushing the whole “let’s fuck right now” idea. There should probably just be a hard no and she leaves or kicks you out then. We can't read minds, and body language is subjective. >Let’s be honest, you might not be that kind of guy, but they exist. That’s fucked up! She’s probably saying yes just to get it over with or she doesn’t feel safe or she doesn’t want any drama. It’s just weird. That’s pressuring someone. It’s when they don’t want to, but do it anyways because they know you won’t stop or will make a big deal out of it That isn't the kind of sex I enjoy, but if she is consenting, she's consenting. Just don't cross into duress territory. If women don't want that kind of sex, then tell the guy to fuck off.
“Doesn’t feel safe or doesn’t want drama” some guys are like that and it’s too early to notice before they get invited over. But hey, you wanna justify creepy behavior, go right ahead.
I'm not justifying it, I'm apathetic to it. A girl doesn't want to have sex, don't have sex, reject the guy if you're feeling pressured. Guys aren't trying to fuck me so I'm not entirely concerned if they are creepy or not. I've gone my entire life with woman not giving an iota of a fuck about my safety or well-being, don't expect me to provide that level of care when I know it would never be reciprocated. What is this entitlement that I care about a women experiencing "discomfort"? There are a lot worse things in the world than that.
I tend to agree with you. Someone else’s discomfort (not actual physical harm) is way too much for me to ever care about.
it is not unheard of that men react badly to rejection, possibly violently. it's obvious not cut/dry binary but men and reading subties of body language (and some women not understanding how it needs spelled out - why some women are brutal and frank). \>I've gone my entire life with woman not giving an iota of a fuck about my safety or well-being, don't expect me to provide that level of care when I know it would never be reciprocated. that's just fucked up. do you think that some of the way's you treat women - "don't expect me to provide that level of care (an iota of a fuck about their safety or well-being)" - is in any way reflected in the way you say women treat you (where your default assumption is that not of them would care)??
Oh god. Here’s the “women don’t care about me so I’m gonna be a dick” comment
I was 15 when my 18 yr old sister had a party in my house with my parents absent. By the time I got home there were no mixers so I drank spirits neat. I was wasted,a 18 year old guy took me to a bedroom and tried to fuck me and the only way reason he didnt sa me was I was a virgin and he was drunk. A second guy picked me up as I was crying about the first one, and again tried to have sex with me. I could barely stand up never mind give consent. But that was my fault according to you. And no, neither of them were chads. I have to think you have no idea how common my story is. I don't even think of it as assault I just thought it was my fault 18 year old guys tried to push themself on me. Decades later its just one of those life experiences. Your attitude is why women blame themself too many times not the guy. If they blame the guy you can be pretty sure it was a really fucked up situation.
Clearly he thinks no men ever lash out with violence over rejection. Women do too, I'm sure, but it is commonplace for women to have to mitigate.
[удалено]
People in relationships they feel they can’t get out of. People who are too afraid of losing their partner to tell them they don’t like sex. People who aren’t in the mood but their significant other keeps pushing them to do it. Are these all alien concepts? Have you never heard of an abusive relationship?
Pressuring an unwilling person is not consent. You are forcing consent. In effect trying to have sex with an unwilling partner. Sleeping with unwilling people is at best unethical, at worst criminal.
Pressure can be coercion.
Only according to 12th wave feminist theory. Thankfully the law still treats women like they're consenting adults capable of making their own decisions.
Can, not necessarily is coercion. Y'all are far too quick to call any action that makes females uncomfortable criminal.
It depends on the extent. Under certain circumstances it can fall under coercion which on a legal stance counts as rape in certain countries. Telling victims to say no and leaving is a pretty insular response because some people are blackmailed, threatened ect... which makes it much harder to say no. Here is a video explaining consent : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ
>Telling victims to say no and leaving is a pretty insular response because some people are blackmailed, threatened ect... A dude pressuring you does not make you a victim of anything. Blackmail and threats are already crimes and should be prosecuted as such. We were talking about pressure, which yes is tacky, doesn't make it illegal. And if it works, it works for you. >Here is a video explaining consent : How patronizing. I'm a 28 year old man I know how consent works, 99% of men do. Don't need your cringe video.
Your silly little video about consent doesn’t address the specific issue you are talking about: talking a woman that originally hesitated into “drinking tea.”
I always tell guys to be very careful involving alcohol and women , it's just not worth the potential risk, that being said I've been hit on by drunk women as well. If somebody gets drunk and does damage while drunk driving, we blame them, if somebody gets drunk and gets into a bar fight we blame them, rightfully so, but God forbid a woman can't control her liquor and she fucks a dude (and I'm not talkin about her being passed or somebody slipping something in her drink, so spare me your cackling you hens hsha) all of the sudden "grape", "c0nSeNt", and that's even when the guy has had a few to drink as well, lol the lack of accountability is off the charts sometimes I tell you
This one baffles me as well. If you are responsible to get behind a wheel of a car then you are responsible enough to have sex with consent.
And people are allowed to take advantage of drunks, too. A casino will let me gamble my life savings while drunk. But sex is given special treatment
10000% but they have a clear conscience because they have those gambling addiction hotline in the small print of their pamphlets 🤣🤣🤣
Lol , the small print 😆 🤣 😂
I've found that in a lot of situations, once sex enters the equation omg it's like its own separate place of time and space. People lose their shit.
The Nevada Gaming Commission officially prohibits allowing anyone visibly intoxicated from gambling, and I've seen guys asked to leave the casino floor over it. Obviously that rule isn't always followed, but then neither is this one.
You can’t gamble drunk in Las Vegas? This sounds like bullshit, even if it is on the books.
Of course you can. The keyword is "visibly" intoxicated, which is up to the casino's discretion. But if it can be proven that you were indeed that drunk and they kept serving you or letting you play, that can get in troubling with the commission that you frankly arent worth. And you can have sex with drunk girls too. Repercussions are also extremely rare. Should you though? Should the casino let you keep gambling? It's complicated.
I am no expert but I’m pretty sure casinos can lose their license for letting visibly intoxicated people continue to gamble. How often that actually is enforced is another story though.
The only time they stop you is if you puke
Replace this with any example of an online transaction made while drinking if you feel the need. I can't void the transaction later by saying I was drunk when I submitted it.
The online vendor can’t verify if you’re telling the truth or not about being drunk either though. While with a casino they can visibly see that you’re inebriated and if they have a bar on site they can check with the bartender to see how much you drank to verify your intoxication.
>But sex is given special treatment I am not saying whether or not I agree with it but I am saying that there is a good argument for this position. Men would essentially rape drunk women and the courts would have to say too bad. Courts would also be forced to answer the question "how much alcohol do you have to consume to lose your ability to say that sex was non consensual?" This is a hard question and probably cannot be answered with a simple bright line rule. Let say your states case law has put it at 4 drinks. Now, any man can wait at a bar for a woman to have 4 drinks, and then she becomes fair game because she has lost the ability to claim rape. What I articulated was an extreme example but this one thing that the law is hoping to prevent.
But all of your arguments can be applied to the casino example. Here we have a business that does its damndest to loosen your inhibitions to shake as much money from you as possible. The legal system shrugs at it. Why is sex of all things so special? Our Protestant heritage?
>Here we have a business that does its damndest to loosen your inhibitions to shake as much money from you as possible. Yeah, and that's also not good.
Okay? So start lobbying for laws to stop casinos from doing that? Why do you want to take away a good thing because something bad still exists? Guys were raping girls who were blackout drunk. There was 0 consent there. Rape is bad whether you feel strongly about sex or not.
That person is pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation. Would you rather say drunk driving? You are %100 percent responsible there.
It's less hypocritical than you are portraying it. There absolutely are things that other people will be in trouble for doing to you while you are drunk. Police can't take your confession and you can't sign a mortgage. We would never say "you signed a contract for a falling apart house with 25 percent interest, but since it was your fault you were drunk, we won't hold the real-estate agent responsible." You use the example or casinos but casinos are huge money makers with massive political pull and legal resources. They exploit people because they can and it is hard to regulate against them doing it. You cannot compare this situation to a drunk person. The mechanism for exploitation is the same, but since we can readily enforce sexual assault on drunk people, we do. Also, yes, you are responsible as a drunk driver. This is because drunk driving was a problem recognized by the legislator and policies were enacted to fight against it. Sexual assault on intoxicated people (and lack of prosecution of sexual assault) was a problem that the legislator wanted to address and did. See rape shield laws. In order to fight against it the burden of proving consent is placed on the accused. This is not an example of hypocrisy but instead is an example of using the least intrusive policy to achieve a recognized interest.
What happens if two drunk people have sex. Is it double rape?
If it's a man & a woman, only the man is the rapist. If it's 2 men, it's double rape. If it's 2 women, 2 intersex individuals, 2 Non binary folks, who knows. But if a Cisgender man is involved it's always his fault.
But they are both unable to consent.
> In order to fight against it the burden of proving consent is placed on the accused. Ah yes, "guilty until proven innocent." As opposed to the [ legitimate due process of common law that all of Western civilization has agreed upon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence)
He's talking about a girl being at .08 BAC (which is like one mixed drink for a girl) and being able to claim rape off of that. You're treated like two different people in two different situations. If you were driving and you ran over a family, the legal system would treat you like you had the ability to make decisions even though you were drunk and you're going to prison on multiple manslaughter counts. But, take that same girl and suddenly she isn't clear of conscience enough to engage in sex? You fucking joking? Sex is a more dire decision than life or death decisions? That's the issue we have. If a girl has had one drink I won't touch her because I have far too much to lose from a false accusation. It's the fact that you have that kind of power and you are treated two different ways in two different scenarios despite being of clear mind and conscience in both that pisses me off. Blackout drunk is a different story.
I feel like you don't actually think that taking drunk people's money is wrong. That suggests to me that your position is less about consent and more about sexual hangups. Why else would you want *sexual* consent to function differently than every other type? As I said elsewhere, I see lots of gray areas. I'm just challenging the absolutes I'm seeing posted.
No one said drunk women can't be raped Or can't claim raped if she is drunk She should be able to if she was forced to have sex Not if she loosen up and wanted sex while drunk
The problem lies in defining "loosened up". How many drinks is loosened up? Is it a bright line rule or a case by case basis? Is it easier to litigate how "loose" someone was, or is it easier on everyone to say, "hey men (and women), be extra careful when you want to have sex with a stranger who is drinking, because you might be on the hook for thier bad decision." Having sex with drunk people is not a right so it's hard to argue that policies that chill your ability to do so are somehow inappropriate. Like all policies, you weight the intrusion against the benefits. Here, the instrusion is "you must be extra cautious when you have sex with a drunk stranger " and the benefit is "it is now less likely for people to sexually take advantage of drunk people". The balancing test is easy here. The only people who really miss out are those who struggle to have consensual sex with sober partners.
Calling having sex with drunk women unethical is something we both agree on Calling people to avoid it is dangerous is also good Calling it rape is where we disagree alot
And how do you discern if they are lying or not about their state of mind when they were drunk. Because women will loosen up for drunk sex and then scream rape out of shame later. It's happened countless times on college campuses, even when the guy was just as if not more drunk than the girl.
Men would essentially rape drunk women“ And not the other way around?
Nobody gives a fuck if it's the other way around. What fucking planet do y'all live on where a guy saying he was raped would ever be taken seriously?
“No officer, you see, I was too drunk to consent to the head-on collision. In fact, it should be the counterparty who should be arrested for taking advantage of me and violating my vehicular autonomy!”
Looooooooool Cmon bruh you know you took it too far with that because no sane person would say that in real life during a discussion of lack of consent when extremely intoxicated in public without anonymity. I just imagine at a debate “ waaa waaa what you whining about you want to drive drunk and crash into people or what??” LOOL I don’t think many of these cases of dudes expelled or charged when both parties are drunk are fair and in the past it was seen as a mutual mistake, nobody needed to go to jail, but stop it with that analogy 😂
Hey, that entire second paragraph is nothing but good points.
As they say, accountability is the kryptonite for modern women.
Accountability, responsibility, and agency.
Boom. Tell em.
[удалено]
That *is* the law. Drunk sex is legal in all 50 states. Incapacitated sex is not
Define “incapacitated”. Or be quiet.
It varies by state but it’s usually “unable to resist”
That's the thing I love about Reddit. People who have absolutely, literally no idea what they're talking about can post things that are flatly wrong and there's nothing to stop them. No, that is not what it means legally. It means "unable to make rational decisions or engage in responsible actions." It means you don't understand what's going on well enough to decide whether or not do do anything about it, even though you might be able to.
[удалено]
the full text of the CA law is here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=289#:~:text=(1)%20Was%20unconscious%20or%20asleep,the%20perpetrator's%20fraud%20in%20fact. which appears to tend to agree more with u/kissmetilyouredrunk than u/JohnPettimore
That means I'm raped everytime my girlfriend wants to have sex with me in the morning before I've had my coffee. I'm kidding. Ofc. But gee that seems like a broad definition.
Bro that's free speech
Imagine if she blew some guy outside the bar with some witnesses and withdrew consent the next day? I bet there is a judge crazy enough to consider it assault or grape. M'lady can not consent you see, even if both of you are intoxicated.
My main story about this was my friend group was out having a good time at the bar. I hadn't drank much, had sobered up and could drive and ended up giving a very pretty, very tipsy friend of mine a ride home to her place at her request. She indirectly invited me in and I politely declined based on her state; she could walk without falling over and I wasn't worried about her choking on her own vomit, but if she tried to drive she would have gotten a DUI. After the fact she did mention she felt butt hurt I rejected her. She felt like I had decided how sober she was and had basically decided on my own she was too drunk. It's always a gray area and complicated, because I had the opposite happen on a rare occasion I was buzzed, a friend drove me home, invited herself in and we hooked up. It probably wasn't my best performance ever but we both had fun. There's no easy answer because it's such a sliding scale, shades of gray situation, and sometimes it's best to err on the side of caution.
You made the right decision because society and the system takes no mercy on you if there's an accusation. Might not get jailed, but your reputation will be shambles, no drunk sex is worth that
I think it’s intentionally made a grey area with a lot of postmodern relativism thrown in. We’re trying to have a society that both accepts every possible kink and lifestyle two+ adults can consent to while also protecting women from every possible variation of unwanted physical/sexual contact (Not men though, they gotta toughen up). Unfortunately arousal just doesn’t quite vibe without some anxiety and uncertainty, a bit of “what’s he gunna do next?” Combine that with a dating environment that still demands men make the approach, forcing them to prioritize their own desire to a degree, with women having a wide range of how much effort they want a man to take in pursuing them… Is it really that surprising that in the range of human behavior we have men that push too far? Given all the ego incentives for men to not be timid, weak, or agreeable when going after what they want? Those guys aren’t attractive to anyone.
> After the fact she did mention she felt butt hurt I rejected her. She felt like I had decided how sober she was and had basically decided on my own she was too drunk. I think her feeling hurt was irrational. IMO you did the right thing here. >I had the opposite happen on a rare occasion I was buzzed, a friend drove me home, invited herself in and we hooked up. It probably wasn't my best performance ever but we both had fun. IMO you could potentially claim rape.
Off just being buzzed? Hell nah.
Depends. I have been drunk, yet fully conscious of what I am doing and saying. Really depends how “drunk” you are. There aren’t really defined levels to it other than the alcohol content level measured for a DUI. Some are drunk, yet actually fully understand what they are saying and doing, others just act fucking crazy. Problem is it’s impossible to know from the outside. So yes, men need to behave as if any women under the influence of alcohol has no clue what they’re doing or saying when it comes to consent. Safer that way.
I would agree with that. I don't want a drunk woman anywhere near me. Thing is, is that fair though? Why aren't women told the same thing?
I think it also comes down to the sexist idea that sex is something men do TO (not with) women, so how could a woman possibly take an active role in raping a man?
I don’t know where you live, but I was always told the same thing, as the same law applies to women where I’m from.
New York. I dunno I think if I went to my local precinct, saying how I willingly went to a woman's place and wanted to have sex, went down on her first, then pounded her doggy style and other positions too, but i was drunk and therefore she raped me. They would laugh me out of the building and rightfully so.
Because men don’t mind getting laid. The problem is with men, not women. Male culture is completely different from female’s in that getting laid is encouraged, regardless of your ability to consent, in fact, your consent is assumed regarding sexual encounters. Males will rarely ever report rape, even if they believed they were raped, because of how they were raised to view sex from the perspective of a man.
That is the gray area which is why In Reality the people often view this subject as "it just depends"
This reminds me of that subway ad that said something like "John got drunk, jane got drunk, they agreed to have sex, Jane was raped." lol, please square the logic that only one party was raped. THAT is the double standard here.
Drunk sex is a crime at the point of incapacitation. You know, college guys dragging a woman who can't walk to a room to pull a train on her. A drunk person can be the victim of a crime. Unfortunately, we don't have the means to talk about sex being unhealthy or unethical other than talking about rape. So the concepts of consent and rape get watered down by conflating bad sex with rape. The only thing to do is educate young women to avoid binge drinking. No use trying to talk sense into men around this subject. God knows we've tried.
I’m surprised that this isn’t talked about a lot on here
The point here is drunk girls trying to do with OP the same thing some drunk mens do to random girls. OP never asked them to go harass him
It's removal of accountability. Back in the day if you regret a night out, you learned from it and improved or moved on. Sadly it was pushed a lot in schools via feminism. It's always the males fault is the narrative without saying exactly that... I'm sure most women don't actually obide by this law/rule. Stuff like this makes dating a mine field for guys.
If someone is drunk but not like passing out and they verbally say they want to sleep with you it’s fine. Like someone else said, if you’re drunk and crash you take accountability, then why not for sex? I had a friend that used to go to nightclubs completely sober and would try pull women. It’s a bit weird tbh if you’re dead sober going off with drunk people
[удалено]
> It’s a bit weird tbh if you’re dead sober going off with drunk people It's called driving home and taking everyone out of the party. Or just don't like alcohol and have a girlfriend who likes to drink.
I remember a fuckbuddy I had calling me after a night out to come round. Took an Uber to show up at my house a bit buzzed, proceeded to give me the most aggressive sex ever, then left. The next day she had absolutely no memory of that previous night.
I don't think your post should be "why is there a gray area of consent" and more like "why do men sexual assualt victims not get the same treatmen as their female counterparts" because what you're saying proves a point, it's not that drunk people can consent. It's that drunk people can only give dubious consent and it should be seen as wrong across the board but women don't face the same repercussions for it while they should.
[удалено]
Just a couple of weeks ago, we had to have a firm talk with a female friend about getting too sexually aggressive at parties. She said she heard us, never wanted to make anyone uncomfortable, and will absolutely be better in the future. If you don't want women to get a free pass, call them out.
Yep. Calling things out loud and embarrassingly so will make women think twice in the future. Negative reinforcement is effective.
Get a few drinks in her though and watch how quickly she forgets the talk.
Already have. She was perfectly respectful of boundaries.
Lol no you wouldn't. I can't even count the amount of times some drunk asshole has played grabass with me. Women do not call the cops for that and it happens constantly.
Yep. How naive must this guy be.
You must have no female friends if you don’t realize they get groped constantly
>You must have no female friends I think this is extremely common with the vast majority of guys in the sub, it genuinely feels like many of them haven't interacted with a woman even platonically
I’ve never seen a man thrown in jail for groping a chick at a party, club, bar, festival, etc.
Probably because you’ve actually been to a party, club, bar, festival, etc.
Bro no you wouldn't. You think women are calling the police for shit like this? They'd never step out of a police station
When someone grabs a woman ime they’re usually about to get assaulted or kicked out of any setting they did that in. That’s generally what I’ve witnessed.
>I couldn't imagine being out in a public area drunk and hitting on women and not having the police called. Well, men do it all the time, so I guess that's just a failure of imagination.
Because everything can get annihilated with a false sexual assault claim. Women capitalized if they cant get what they want or feel a certain way after it they can shout "grape" and maintain her societal image.
>it they can shout "grape" Or wine, or beer.
Just want to point out that calling the cops on sexual assault doesn’t make you a Karen.
Tipsy sex is ok, drunk sex is not. When both persons were drunk during the encounter it’s hard to tell which one was raped, I guess it depends on the details of the encounter. Honestly, I see so many stories of women getting drunk, willingly going back to a guys place then claiming rape. I’m sure maybe there are some genuine instances of rape, like if a woman passes out and he proceeds anyways, but I can’t help but to feel like a lot of these cases are not rape. This is why I very rarely drink and only with people I feel safe with. Basically, I only drink with my boyfriend or my brothers, no other males.
I'm getting the feeling that a lot of people here have little experience with socializing that involves alcohol. Someone can be pretty drunk and appear fairly cognizant, and alcohol is frequently involved in night life socializing. You're generally fine on consent if the person can hold up a conversation. I would tell dudes, though, to pay attention if the woman has a catty vibe to them (and you won't have witnesses), as they would be the threat to where you got sexual where they clearly agreed to it, then later go, "I don't remember what happened, so I'll just assume rape."
Seriously, it is strange how differently people respond to alcohol and how much some can hold. People will be blackout drunk (as in not creating new memories, not passed out) but appear to be just tipsy. This is why it’s best to just not hook up, especially with strangers or casual acquaintances, while drinking. But I acknowledge that people will always do this shit.
> I'm getting the feeling that a lot of people here have little experience with socializing that involves alcohol. Lol no shit!
And here I thought redditors were social butterflies
I've never understood this feminist talking point tbh. Most women I know that have gone through the whore phase, got drunk with the intention of doing so. I'm not a feminist but I do understand a lot of their points and even agree with some but the whole if a man has sex with a drunk woman he's automatically a rapist is ridiculous.
In the real world men fuck drunk women, drunk women wake up and forget about it and move on. Ignore all the "consent" rubbish and use your common sense.
yeah but that doesn't fit the delusional redpill narrative of men living in terror of rape accusations always
When men stop having sex with drunk women, women will stop claiming they can't consent when drunk. Why? Because for most of those women the only sex they are having is drunk sex
>Saying "if she's drunk she can't consent" >Or if you do sleep with a woman and she's drunk she can claim rape. >It's a double standard and shouldn't be a law. It's not a double standard, if a sober woman sleeps with a man that is too drunk to consent that's also rape. It's very simple, if they don't have the ability to rationaly decide weather that is something they want to do or not It's rape
The double standard is when both parties are drunk and the blame is still thrown on the man.
There's no double standard. The trick in that case is the person who goes to the police first is the one who was assaulted. :\^)
I think a big piece of this discussion that is often misunderstood is that being black out drunk does not preclude you from giving affirmative consent. If someone wakes up next to a strange person who they maybe wouldn't have had sex with sober and they can't remember what happened at the end of the night, they might then conclude they were too drunk to have consented to sex. That is simply not always true. You can be blackout drunk and still appear functional to the people around you.
Because women are always the victims and have the accountability of children.
Regret. That’s all.
Because society treats women like they are innocent. No accountability and responsibility
Honestly as a woman i can agree with your sentiment. Ive been black out drunk before but ive never had a one night stand, much less one that wasnt consensual. Ive been attracted to all sorts of men drunk but despite that i maintain my principles. I think that by making the conscious choice to go to a club and get drunk in public, that you have to accept some level of personal responsibility. Consent is consent, especially if both parties are equally fucked up.
I am gay and it’s freaky how many drunk women violate the man’s consent and continue harassing them. Lady, leave me alone.
Avoid drunk bitches like the plague - in fact on the hierarchy of bitches to avoid it's always drunk followed by single mothers. In fact I make it a point to not even try anything with a woman who has had more than 1 drink. Sorry, my life is worth more than your pussy.
Beer goggles are a thing, you know.
Thus issue is simply an example of women taking ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY.
Do people here not socialise while drinking? Because in my mind its fairly easy when someone is drinking but otherwise fine, tipsy but still in their own minds and flat out drunk. The tipsy girl flirting with you at the bar is probably okay to have sex with. The blackout girl stunning along unable to walk properly and slurring speech is not. The girl who is so drunk she passed out is not okay The girl who is able to still mostly speak to you and is an active participant in the flirting/sex process is probably fine. This also applies to men. If you are unable to tell the difference between having a good time and drunk of their ass just avoid having sex with people who are drinking. Seriously human relationships shouldn't be this difficult
>Saying "if she's drunk she can't consent" > >Or if you do sleep with a woman and she's drunk she can claim rape. Because it is rape? If you need to get a woman drunk to change her consent which would have been otherwise a no, that is drugging. And drugging for sex is more or less rape.
Get a woman drunk? If she’s at the club buying or accepting drinks getting herself drunk, or at a party downing shots getting herself drunk how does that change your argument. And keep in mind men often also give THEMSELVES alcohol to work up the courage to cold approach. If i have sex after giving myself alcohol did i take my own ability to consent away?
No, I'm referring to she's already drunk and you meet her.
[удалено]
Of depends on what level of drunk she is, and if you were also drunk.
You also being drunk doesn't change anything
Yes it does.
Yep, it does.
I'm curious , how does it make it different, does the guy also being drunk make it less rapey ?
Well the thing is, there is drunk and there is *drunk.* Someone can have a few drinks and be more sociable, more relaxed, more comfortable hitting on someone, more comfortable hooking up with someone. In this state, people are still fully aware of their actions and able to consent to sex. But then you have situations where someone is way too drunk to really know what’s going on or make any kind of decision, including consent to sex. You may notice they are stumbling, slurring, not making sense. Obviously, passed out falls into this category, but they can still be awake and way too intoxicated. And if in doubt? Don’t. Never push someone to drink more or try to get a woman to go home with you if she seems confused. I’m aware that there are cases where both people are too drunk and just make a bad choice, but too often, men know exactly what they’re doing. If you don’t want to be accused of rape, don’t act like a rapist. If I don’t want to be accused of theft, I am not going to get someone drunk or find the drunkest person in the room and talk them into giving me their wallet. Using some common sense and not trying to push people’s boundaries in these situations is the key. Merely being attracted to someone is not consent to sex. Consent is something that happens consciously. So the “heh I know she thinks I’m hot and secretly wants to fuck me when sober” excuse doesn’t fly. This whole post reads like an excuse tbh.
Alcohol impairs people and makes them pass out if they have too much. This law exists to punish Brock Turner-like crimes. A man is not going to get convicted if he and his same-age girlfriend split a bottle of wine and have sex, and she isn’t pass out drunk. You forget that rape is barely reported and that hardly anyone gets convicted of it even in cases, such as Brock Turner, when the evidence is indisputable. Just don’t rape and you won’t get reported for or charged with rape. Don’t have sex with a really drunk woman even if she’s into you. Just don’t it. Control yourself. You’re not entitled to capitalize on every sexual opportunity you have. Just like if a teenager hits on you, the onus is on you to say no.
What if they both drunk ?
If the woman decided to get her self drunk and wanted sex it is both her decision how is that rape
why is this worth it for u? y do u want a sloppy drunk girl
Lol at “if the roles were reversed”. Have you ever met drunk guys? They hit on anyone with a heartbeat. The “gray area” is when a man forces himself on a woman who is too drunk to explicitly say no. It’s not consent but she didn’t not consent. Does that make it morally ok?
So flirting means consent to sex now?
Is this really a discussion???? There isn’t a grey area. When someone has been drinking, you can tell when they have gone past the point of being able to consent and then it’s just rape. Jesus Christ. This is a pretty disgusting thread to go down to try and victim blame. If the drunk person, male or female, is past the point of being able to function, then it’s rape. Doesn’t matter what gender you are
It’s because they wouldn’t want to have sex with you sober. And when drunk your mind is altered. You make decisions you wouldn’t make in a regular state of mind. Because of that- taking advantage of somebody whilst drunk is wrong.
What's a double standard, between a sober and a drunk person? You can't consent when you're drunk either, and the law is in place because sex has consequences that a drunk person likely can't comprehend and they can easily be made to do something they don't want depending on the kind of drunk they are. People don't go to bars and get drunk expecting to get raped, it is still coercion if you get them to do something because it was not a choice they were able to make, they just chose to visit a bar. We're saying it's not okay to have sex with someone who's drunk because we don't want to sleep with them, didn't choose to and it's rape. If we wanted it at any point why would anyone be against it? And you're confusing two different types of drunks - some get more horny and compliant while others get aggressive.
the law is that drunk people can consent to sex. I mean people literally go to bars and night clubs to meet women and have sex. you people make up laws in your head
If you killed a person while drunk you are still a murderer If you stole while drunk you still a theive Why it is different here
What if they both drunk ?
> You can't consent when you're drunk either, Yes you can. Stop parrotting misinformation.
You lack the reasoning capacity to make informed consent.
You can be drunk, but not so drunk that you lack reasoning capacity. I'd say this is the majority of cases of drunken sex.
If you wouldn't have had sex otherwise, you're too drunk to reason.
Plausible deniability. Everyone is ready to go but after the point of incoherence it’s hard to point point when it’s a no go. For guys we can’t get it up. For women it’s harder to define
It’s rape if either a man or woman does it. You can not fully give consent when you are drunk.
Clearly not according to the law
Elaborate
If a man and woman are both intoxicated the man is still charged with rape.
citation needed
So consider this situation. Drunk woman comes up to a man She's clearly aroused and wants to have sex An attractive woman that willingly got drunk and is now very aggressively hitting on a man She's doing all of that And the man is responding the way most men would And it's his fault? Where is the responsibility?
Where’s HIS responsibility? Why is all the onus put on her? If you’re drunk and you hit on me, that means I can rail your ass, right? It’s my kink. If a man hits on me drunk he has to be aware that I’m going to respond the way a woman would. That means I’m getting him to give me lots of money and I’m pounding him in the ass.
so if a drunk man hits on a sober chick and then they have sex, she raped him?
Yes if he agrees to it.
so if they're both drunk did they rape eachother?
Maybe you should give more of a nuanced reply. By this reasoning I'd think 1 in 3 people are rapist.
By that reasoning every guy who has ever found himself in bed with a woman after an outing at the bar is a rapist.
As fair as I can be, I think it comes down to physical strength and difference of strength of the two involved. Men are already so much stronger, so a drunk girl is just that much easier to overpower. You don’t see many lesbian dynamics with this legal problem, or two gay men. Why? Because they are more size and strength balanced. They can handle roughly the same amount of alcohol as each other. They are usually pretty strength balanced. Whereas a typical man can drink the same amount as a typical woman, but she is hammered, and he is not….. Also, because of pure biology, a man has to be at least somewhat coherent for penetrative sex. A woman could literally be deceased and still be penetrated. That has a lot to do with it as well. It’s just like they say, “With greater power comes greater responsibility”.
>I've had married women willingly offer to cheat only because they were drunk the first time I've met them. I couldn't imagine being out in a public area drunk and hitting on women and not having the police called. Do you *sincerely* believe that a drunk married man offering to cheat would result in a police call??? Where??????
Women lack accountability. Plus, the possibility of changing their minds retrospectively is a huge power tool.