Alcohol & Consent: Why the Double Standard?
August 29, 2011 9:01 AM Subscribe
Roland Hulme writes an editorial arguing that drunken consent to sex is still consent.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Single editorial staking out a position on complicated and controversial subject is not really great fodder for a post. -- cortex
Does having sex require a legal contract of some sort, even a verbal one? Honestly, I think that's the question. If so, then being drunk makes you ineligible to sign a contract and, thus, no sex should occur. (So does being a minor.)
But if this is how we look at it, then both Chris Evans and Edith Zimmerman are in violation -- they might've date-raped each other.
posted by chasing at 9:17 AM on August 29, 2011
But if this is how we look at it, then both Chris Evans and Edith Zimmerman are in violation -- they might've date-raped each other.
posted by chasing at 9:17 AM on August 29, 2011
I had a pithy comeback to the opening line of his little editorial, but this douchebag isn't worth my time. And the rest of it is so rage-inducing I have to temporarily leave the internet.
posted by iamkimiam at 9:17 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by iamkimiam at 9:17 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
(In the article, he says "Even legal contracts you sign when drunk are considered legally binding." I'm not sure this is 100% the case.)
posted by chasing at 9:18 AM on August 29, 2011
posted by chasing at 9:18 AM on August 29, 2011
His framing of the issue in terms of responsibility immediately indicates to me that his interest is in holding women accountable, which is not the issue here. The relevant question in this situation is not whether women are legally or effectively responsible for actions undertaken when drunk, it's whether or not intoxication impairs and alters one's judgment and decision-making, which he acknowledges it does, so his argument is meaningless because it asks an irrelevant question.
posted by clockzero at 9:18 AM on August 29, 2011
posted by clockzero at 9:18 AM on August 29, 2011
You can't sign contracts while drunk?
If being drunk is enough to make apparent consent false, then what about certain medications? And how is the other person supposed to tell if those conditions obtain?
posted by DU at 9:18 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
If being drunk is enough to make apparent consent false, then what about certain medications? And how is the other person supposed to tell if those conditions obtain?
posted by DU at 9:18 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Who the fuck is Roland Hulme and why do I care about his bullshit?
posted by kmz at 9:19 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by kmz at 9:19 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
There is a huge difference between drunken consent and being so drunk that you can't say no.
There is a huge difference between both parties being drunk and a situation where only one party is drunk.
If it is rape when one is drunk, then it is rape when either are drunk
posted by 2manyusernames at 9:20 AM on August 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
There is a huge difference between both parties being drunk and a situation where only one party is drunk.
If it is rape when one is drunk, then it is rape when either are drunk
posted by 2manyusernames at 9:20 AM on August 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
"If in doubt, don't whip it out" has served me well for many years, and I see no reason here why that should change.
posted by Ahab at 9:21 AM on August 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Ahab at 9:21 AM on August 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
[SPOILER ALERT]
Drunk people will probably continue to have sex regardless of this thread.
[/SPOILER ALERT]
posted by unSane at 9:23 AM on August 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
Drunk people will probably continue to have sex regardless of this thread.
[/SPOILER ALERT]
posted by unSane at 9:23 AM on August 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
Just to help out other people that just got flagged by their corporate firewall, This thread should have a NSFW tag attached or a safe for work website.
posted by lpcxa0 at 9:24 AM on August 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by lpcxa0 at 9:24 AM on August 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
The distinction is an important one; and needs to be addressed. There is something deeply troubling and hypocritical about a society that assumes an intoxicated woman isn’t responsible for sexual choices she makes while intoxicated.
I sort of appreciate the point he is trying to make about how, legally, even when drunk, we are still responsible for getting behind the wheel of a car, or committing acts of vandalism, but I think the important difference is that in both of those examples, we are on our own, making decisions for ourselves. In the case of inebriation preventing consent, you have the factor of another person potentially using alcohol specifically to circumvent good decision making choices. And what might be a "yes" when drunk could easily be a "no" in any other circumstance.
So I'd have to keep with my standing opinion that while there might be legal wiggle room (is there? I don't actually know.), from a societal standpoint, having sex with someone who is too drunk to provide consent is taking advantage of them and that is too close to rape to ever be okay in my eyes.
posted by quin at 9:24 AM on August 29, 2011 [6 favorites]
I sort of appreciate the point he is trying to make about how, legally, even when drunk, we are still responsible for getting behind the wheel of a car, or committing acts of vandalism, but I think the important difference is that in both of those examples, we are on our own, making decisions for ourselves. In the case of inebriation preventing consent, you have the factor of another person potentially using alcohol specifically to circumvent good decision making choices. And what might be a "yes" when drunk could easily be a "no" in any other circumstance.
So I'd have to keep with my standing opinion that while there might be legal wiggle room (is there? I don't actually know.), from a societal standpoint, having sex with someone who is too drunk to provide consent is taking advantage of them and that is too close to rape to ever be okay in my eyes.
posted by quin at 9:24 AM on August 29, 2011 [6 favorites]
What he says is that consenting to sex while drunk is equivalent to getting behind the wheel of the car while drunk. What he means though is that consenting to sex while drunk is equivalent to getting drunk and having all your valuables stolen by a thief, and exonerating the mugger because, hey, she was drunk.
posted by Rarebit Fiend at 9:24 AM on August 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Rarebit Fiend at 9:24 AM on August 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
Meh. This is an important topic that should be addressed often and openly, but when I got to the point where he snarked about the "so-called feminists" he lost me completely. It's bad enough when women accuse each other of being bad feminists, but from a man who is already being deliberately provocative about a difficult subject, it makes me curl my lip with icy disdain, to say the least.
posted by elizardbits at 9:25 AM on August 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by elizardbits at 9:25 AM on August 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
His core argument, for those who can't be bothered to read the article, is that just because you blacked out (i.e. your have no memory of the drunken evening) doesn't mean that you were not capable of making decisions during the period which you have blacked out. A blackout is a failure of memory-recording, not (necessarily) coterminous with being passed out or incapable of giving consent.
posted by unSane at 9:27 AM on August 29, 2011
posted by unSane at 9:27 AM on August 29, 2011
This is how the future will pan out:
Scenario: You meet a nice person down the pub, get along and soonish there's a taxi waiting.
Then you both whip out your smartphones, exchange public keys and the application signs it appropriately on both devices and beams them to the cloud.
Then during the, err..., act, the devices record the proceedings so if someone gets blamed for wrongdoings this can be used in court to (dis)prove the claims.
iConsent, coming to an app store near you!
posted by phax at 9:28 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Scenario: You meet a nice person down the pub, get along and soonish there's a taxi waiting.
Then you both whip out your smartphones, exchange public keys and the application signs it appropriately on both devices and beams them to the cloud.
Then during the, err..., act, the devices record the proceedings so if someone gets blamed for wrongdoings this can be used in court to (dis)prove the claims.
iConsent, coming to an app store near you!
posted by phax at 9:28 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
There always seems to be two different arguments going on here. The first is concerned with trying to fashion a hard and bright line to separate rape from not rape.
The second is focused on trying to figure out how best to promote and negotiate mutual consent within sexual relationships and sees a continuum where forcible rape is one extreme.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:30 AM on August 29, 2011
The second is focused on trying to figure out how best to promote and negotiate mutual consent within sexual relationships and sees a continuum where forcible rape is one extreme.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:30 AM on August 29, 2011
Seems a pretty tortuous path he has taken. If only MeFi moderators had more sway. the article would be deleted already and some pithy reason would calm all nerves.
(and yeah, important enough issue, but bad framing and assholish demeanor derails it from being taken as anything more than flame bait)
posted by edgeways at 9:30 AM on August 29, 2011
(and yeah, important enough issue, but bad framing and assholish demeanor derails it from being taken as anything more than flame bait)
posted by edgeways at 9:30 AM on August 29, 2011
Honest question, I am a male who has had sex with a female while I was blacked out. Was I raped?
posted by Ad hominem at 9:31 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Ad hominem at 9:31 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
It was a shitty article--but i think that the move from no means no, to yeas means yes--or enthusastic consent is an excellent way of going forward. Even when drunk, FUCK ME SLOPPY is hard to construe, while maybe, sort of, why not, mumble mumble is pretty hard to figure out what is being consented.
Even better is, specific declarations--kiss me there, lick me here, put yr cock in me, dress up like vicar and naughty school girl so i can be properly spanked, are better than generalities.
Though a cassock and supplice is hard to both get in and out of while drunk, so naughty vicar might have to be a sober game.
posted by PinkMoose at 9:33 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Even better is, specific declarations--kiss me there, lick me here, put yr cock in me, dress up like vicar and naughty school girl so i can be properly spanked, are better than generalities.
Though a cassock and supplice is hard to both get in and out of while drunk, so naughty vicar might have to be a sober game.
posted by PinkMoose at 9:33 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
could be... because of your inability to remember, you will never know for sure, which walks pretty close to the line.
posted by edgeways at 9:33 AM on August 29, 2011
posted by edgeways at 9:33 AM on August 29, 2011
What he means though is that consenting to sex while drunk is equivalent to getting drunk and having all your valuables stolen by a thief, and exonerating the mugger because, hey, she was drunk.
True Story: A friend of mine got black out drunk at a club once, and while looking for his car outside the club, got some help from a passing stranger, who once he helped him find his car, insisted that he drive him home, which actually might have saved his life.
Unfortunately, after my friend passed out on his couch, the good samaritan stole his laptop, phone, camera and car.
My friend was passed out, so that was pretty clearly theft. But what if my friend had handed him the keys and told him that he could keep the car in return for driving him home?
posted by empath at 9:35 AM on August 29, 2011
True Story: A friend of mine got black out drunk at a club once, and while looking for his car outside the club, got some help from a passing stranger, who once he helped him find his car, insisted that he drive him home, which actually might have saved his life.
Unfortunately, after my friend passed out on his couch, the good samaritan stole his laptop, phone, camera and car.
My friend was passed out, so that was pretty clearly theft. But what if my friend had handed him the keys and told him that he could keep the car in return for driving him home?
posted by empath at 9:35 AM on August 29, 2011
Meh. This is an important topic that should be addressed often and openly, but when I got to the point where he snarked about the "so-called feminists" he lost me completely.
Yeah, this topic shouldn't really be done in the form of a polemic.
What he means though is that consenting to sex while drunk is equivalent to getting drunk and having all your valuables stolen by a thief, and exonerating the mugger because, hey, she was drunk.
That goes for this thread, too.
posted by Hoopo at 9:37 AM on August 29, 2011
Yeah, this topic shouldn't really be done in the form of a polemic.
What he means though is that consenting to sex while drunk is equivalent to getting drunk and having all your valuables stolen by a thief, and exonerating the mugger because, hey, she was drunk.
That goes for this thread, too.
posted by Hoopo at 9:37 AM on August 29, 2011
Honest question, I am a male who has had sex with a female while I was blacked out. Was I raped?
Would you have had sex with them sober?
posted by empath at 9:37 AM on August 29, 2011
Would you have had sex with them sober?
posted by empath at 9:37 AM on August 29, 2011
Would you have had sex with the other person while sober? Would the other person have had sex with you whilst sober? No? Then you plied them with a drug until they would want to have sex. Their mind was changed/loosened with a substance instead of amorous appeals.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:39 AM on August 29, 2011
posted by Slackermagee at 9:39 AM on August 29, 2011
Ack, Empath, you beat me to it. Iz doubled.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:41 AM on August 29, 2011
posted by Slackermagee at 9:41 AM on August 29, 2011
I think his point is an excellent one: drunken consent is still consent. We can't hold the other person criminally responsible if they had sex with someone who consented, albeit drunkenly. We might convict them in a social/moral court of being "an asshole" and/or "a putz", but they have not committed rape.
Women as well as men have responsibility for their actions. I mean, what if the woman is not drunk, but just overwhelmed with hormones and has sex she later regrets? That's not rape - that's a poor decision.
He is not saying that having sex with someone who is actually unconcious or so drunk that they are moving in and out of conciousness or who are otherwise unable to indicate consent is not rape - he specifies that is rape. Indeed, he makes the point that consent is not assumed - yes means yes, but nothing means no. But people - men as well as women - can and do make decisions for themselves even under the influence of alcohol, and I think he's right to point out that the other person is not responsible should you decide to have sex while drunk but still concious and (somewhat) coherant.
posted by jb at 9:41 AM on August 29, 2011
Women as well as men have responsibility for their actions. I mean, what if the woman is not drunk, but just overwhelmed with hormones and has sex she later regrets? That's not rape - that's a poor decision.
He is not saying that having sex with someone who is actually unconcious or so drunk that they are moving in and out of conciousness or who are otherwise unable to indicate consent is not rape - he specifies that is rape. Indeed, he makes the point that consent is not assumed - yes means yes, but nothing means no. But people - men as well as women - can and do make decisions for themselves even under the influence of alcohol, and I think he's right to point out that the other person is not responsible should you decide to have sex while drunk but still concious and (somewhat) coherant.
posted by jb at 9:41 AM on August 29, 2011
In the article, he says "Even legal contracts you sign when drunk are considered legally binding."
Okay, then -- if he ever propositions me I'll tell him my attorney needs to look over the contract first, and it'll take about six weeks.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:41 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Okay, then -- if he ever propositions me I'll tell him my attorney needs to look over the contract first, and it'll take about six weeks.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:41 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
The question is, really, can I post to this thread while drunk, or having sex, or both, for that matter?
posted by tomswift at 9:42 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by tomswift at 9:42 AM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
« Older Pert "V" Necked Jumper by: Nancy Edwards, Falls... | In A Not Distant Database, Next Sunday AD... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by a robot made out of meat at 9:12 AM on August 29, 2011 [2 favorites]