Consent, sex, and alcohol.

strobe

There have been a couple of threads on here just recently related to this topic but neither were focusing specifically on it. So I figured I'd start one and get a dialogue going, see what opinions people hold on it.

So, it's Friday again, the weekend is here and all over the country thousands of people will be heading out, having a few drinks, hooking up with people they meet out and having sex with them. All good fun and a fine way to enjoy ones self after a week of hard work in my opinion.

But there seems to be a certain amount of ambiguity amongst people in relation to consent in regards of sex and how alcohol effects that. When is/should someone be considered 'too drunk to consent'?

In another thread in one of the other forums the topic came up as well and I tried to word what I felt the phrase 'too drunk to consent' meant to me. I came up with 'I'd consider a person to be too drunk to consent if they were non-communicative and/or not actively engaging in the act'. I based this 'definition' off when I felt I would consider myself to have been too drunk to consent.

So I was wondering what the phrase 'too drunk to consent' means to others? What do people think of my explanation of what it means to me above?



(Now I have a feeling this thread could potentially be quite volatile, and I know this is AH, but I think it could be a pretty interesting and informative discussion if people are willing to listen to each other and be reasonable, which does happen in AH more than people give us credit for. So that's why I'm putting it here and not another forum. It's also a pretty important topic to put out there for discussion I think considering how often sexual encounters tend to include alcohol here.)

FatherLen

i dont understand the question

stupidusername

Your definition would be pretty spot on to me

I'll have to try harder to come up with an argumentative statement

Rocky_Dennis

FatherLen wrote: »

i dont understand the question

You sir, are too drunk to have sex then.

D1stant

It's Friday. I consent to both

El Guapo!

FatherLen wrote: »

i dont understand the question

Just have another drink and I'll tell you later

Immaculate Pasta

Are you coming onto me?

Dravokivich

Simply "If anyone doesn't have a clue what's going on, they are not able to consent to it."

John Doe1

"If she's still standing , put the hand in"-John Doe1

Dudess

I'd agree with you Strobe - being absolutely out of it. Incapable of speaking properly, falling all over the place - even if such a person slurred that they'd be up for sex, the other person shouldn't do anything. Doesn't matter whether the drunk person is male or female. It's not like it would be much of a shag anyway.

The King of Moo

That sounds like a pretty good definition, but it's difficult to come up with a definitive answer.

Everyone reacts differently to alcohol, and some people can appear to be fairly rational when drunk but could in fact be completely fluthered in their heads.

I'd say anyone who's showing clear signs of their behaviour being quite abnormal for them (again, very individual and hard to judge) is probably not capable of giving 100% rational consent.

stupidusername

Dravokivich wrote: »

Simply "If anyone doesn't have a clue what's going on, they are not able to consent to it."

but the problem with that is a person can seem coherent at the time, but wake up the next day not remembering a thing. so is that really someone who is of sound mind to be able to consent? hence the part about actively engaging being important...

token101

How about we just agree it's not rape unless you leave via a window or the fire escape?













:pac:

El Guapo!

I'd say if the person can't stand and can barely string a sentence together then it's a no no. But the problem then is if both people are in that state, who's at fault? Usually the bloke would get the blame.

gcgirl

It would be like shagging a corpse but like ted bundy there is obvisously necrophiliacs and they get their buzz out off shagging something that's still and lifeless not me

Dravokivich

stupidusername wrote: »

Dravokivich wrote: »

Simply "If anyone doesn't have a clue what's going on, they are not able to consent to it."

but the problem with that is a person can seem coherent at the time, but wake up the next day not remembering a thing. so is that really someone who is of sound mind to be able to consent? hence the part about actively engaging being important...

Eh... you aren't going to be very active if you don't know what's going on.

Dudess

Dean09 wrote: »

I'd say if the person can't stand and can barely string a sentence together then it's a no no. But the problem then is if both people are in that state, who's at fault? Usually the bloke would get the blame.

Would two people in that condition really manage sex though?

El Guapo!

Dudess wrote: »

Dean09 wrote: »

I'd say if the person can't stand and can barely string a sentence together then it's a no no. But the problem then is if both people are in that state, who's at fault? Usually the bloke would get the blame.

Would two people in that condition really manage sex though?

I agree that 9 times out of 10 for the bloke itd be like playing snooker with a rope but it can happen.

stupidusername

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh... you aren't going to be very active if you don't know what's going on.

well what I mean is that you can seem to know what's going on at the time, but not know what happened the next day..... that way someone may have gone ahead and done something, but if you don't remember what went on then couldn't it be a very blurry line. as in the newspaper in the other thread.

mackg

Dudess wrote: »

Would two people in that condition really manage sex though?

I've no doubt it happens.

Great post from the Ched Evans thread on the issue:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78307412&postcount=698

hondasam

If either male or female are stupid drunk, unable to undress themselves not to mind anyone else then they are not sober enough to consent to sex.
If anyone changes their mind in the morning saying they ''don't remember'' then how do they know they did not consent, this is when both parties are intoxicated.

Dudess

Dean09 wrote: »

like playing snooker with a rope

Great analogy.

token101

gcgirl wrote: »

It would be like shagging a corpse but like ted bundy there is obvisously necrophiliacs and they get their buzz out off shagging something that's still and lifeless not me

Ted Bundy lives in Egypt now

karl_m

Dean09 wrote: »

I agree that 9 times out of 10 for the bloke itd be like playing snooker with a rope but it can happen.

Two and a half men quote, Pure brilliance

El Guapo!

karl_m wrote: »

Dean09 wrote: »

I agree that 9 times out of 10 for the bloke itd be like playing snooker with a rope but it can happen.

Two and a half men quote, Pure brilliance

That was around long before Two and a half Men!!

PK2008

Look lads, no matter how may pints ye have ye cant be doing the raping.

Earthhorse

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'd say anyone who's showing clear signs of their behaviour being quite abnormal for them (again, very individual and hard to judge) is probably not capable of giving 100% rational consent.

I'd agree with this. The person doesn't have to be incoherent, just at the point where you feel their judgement is compromised. That's a hard call to make in a very small number of cases, especially when your own judgement is compromised or when the person is someone who shows little signs of being effected but wakes up the next day remembering next to nothing, as stupidusername said, in which case, their judgement probably was compromised at the time.

Monty Burnz

The King of Moo wrote: »

That sounds like a pretty good definition, but it's difficult to come up with a definitive answer.

Everyone reacts differently to alcohol, and some people can appear to be fairly rational when drunk but could in fact be completely fluthered in their heads.

I'd say anyone who's showing clear signs of their behaviour being quite abnormal for them (again, very individual and hard to judge) is probably not capable of giving 100% rational consent.

The problem is that you'd probably have to make this judgement after a skinful yourself.

The King of Moo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The problem is that you'd probably have to make this judgement after a skinful yourself.

Particularly in Ireland, which is why it's really difficult to determine levels of consent, except in cases where someone's obviously incredibly drunk and incapable of giving any kind of consent at all.

Dravokivich

stupidusername wrote: »

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh... you aren't going to be very active if you don't know what's going on.

well what I mean is that you can seem to know what's going on at the time, but not know what happened the next day..... that way someone may have gone ahead and done something, but if you don't remember what went on then couldn't it be a very blurry line. as in the newspaper in the other thread.

If someone doesn't recollect what happened the following day. That is there issue. If I was doing it with someone and they were clearly indicating they wanted it and participating as well. Then that would be consent. If I was starting it with someone and they weren't clearly indicating they wanted it, weren't active in it, didn't know what was going on, then there is no consent.

Adding in the chance that someone would wake up the following day and not remember it is very far from what I'd be able to tell after a night with someone.

newmug

gcgirl wrote: »

It would be like shagging a corpse but like ted bundy there is obvisously necrophiliacs and they get their buzz out off shagging something that's still and lifeless not me

token101 wrote: »

Ted Bundy lives in Egypt now

What are you on about?

mickrock

strobe wrote: »

I came up with 'I'd consider a person to be too drunk to consent if they were non-communicative and/or not actively engaging in the act'.

What if they're the quiet, silent type and/or prefer to be fairly passive during the act?

Monty Burnz

mickrock wrote: »

What if they're the quiet, silent type and/or prefer to be fairly passive during the act?

Then they should probably have a few drinks and loosen up.

Tom Cruise

Just dont tell them your name or address.And nevurrrr NEVURRR give them ur number...

mackg

When it comes to both parties being drunk and where to draw the line in terms of the more sober one would it fair to say something along the lines of:

"You're taking advantage if you're sober enough to know you're taking advantage"

In built problem with that though is that if you remember nothing then you don't even know yourself whether you knew you were taking advantage.
Very tricky subject this.

Earthhorse

Dravokivich wrote: »

If someone doesn't recollect what happened the following day. That is there issue. If I was doing it with someone and they were clearly indicating they wanted it and participating as well. Then that would be consent. If I was starting it with someone and they weren't clearly indicating they wanted it, weren't active in it, didn't know what was going on, then there is no consent.

Adding in the chance that someone would wake up the following day and not remember it is very far from what I'd be able to tell after a night with someone.

You're confusing consent with establishing consent. I agree, it's basically impossible for a person to establish consent in the circumstances you describe. It doesn't mean there was consent.

You can't really blame people in such an event, at least, I wouldn't. This is what makes the issue a difficult one to debate.

strobe

mickrock wrote: »

What if they're the quiet, silent type and/or prefer to be fairly passive during the act?

When I say 'non-communicative' I don't mean 'not saying "ohhh yeah fuck me fuck me"' I mean someone being in a state whereby if you say "Mick, we're running down the offo for a few more beers, you want us to pick you up anything?" and they don't show any signs that they have acknowledged or understood what was trying to be communicated to them or seem to have the ability to communicate back successfully. Like when on TV shows the paramedics say "the patient is non-communicative".

And by not actively engaging I mean, for instance, you start kissing them and they aren't kissing back.

If that makes sense?

Fenian Army

I read the title as "constant sex and alcohol" and came in to sign up

Sleepy

Therein lies lies the huge problem: how can consent ever be established in such circumstances?

How do you tell if someone you've met half an hour previously is acting out of character?

Earthhorse

Sleepy wrote: »

How do you tell if someone you've met half an hour previously is acting out of character?

I don't think out of character is possible to establish when you've just met someone, however I don't think that they have to be at the point of non responsiveness for you to feel they can't consent.

To give an example, I was chatting up a girl one night who was a fair bit more drunk than I was. She was still coherent; able to answer any question I asked, able to make a joke, or understand one. Had I asked her to come back to my place she would have been able to give a comprehensible answer, whatever it might have been. But I noticed she was repeating things she'd said already; not just once but a good few times. Like she was forgetting what she'd just said. So I decided to leave it, it didn't feel right.

Later, a friend asked me how I was getting on with that girl as he'd seen me chatting her up. I responded that she was too drunk. He said "You mean you're not drunk enough." There's something to be said for that; had I been less sober, I might well have been more comfortable with the situation.

In short though, I don't think the person needs to be near comatose or non communicative, nor do you need to know them that well, in order for them to give off signs that they are not entirely together.

token101

newmug wrote: »

What are you on about?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056619329

cloptrop

I have a drunk woman in the corner , she is totally wasted but calling me a fag because I wont give her one. Well I think she is calling me a fag , she just keeps blurting out fuuuuuuuuukin ffffffag.
Its a double edged sword this consent thing.

Millicent

cloptrop wrote: »

I have a drunk woman in the corner , she is totally wasted but calling me a fag because I wont give her one. Well I think she is calling me a fag , she just keeps blurting out fuuuuuuuuukin ffffffag.
Its a double edged sword this consent thing.

Eh?

The King of Moo

cloptrop wrote: »

I have a drunk woman in the corner , she is totally wasted but calling me a fag because I wont give her one. Well I think she is calling me a fag , she just keeps blurting out fuuuuuuuuukin ffffffag.
Its a double edged sword this consent thing.

Millicent wrote: »

Eh?

I think he's confusing a woman looking for a cigarette with sexual interest.

token101

The King of Moo wrote: »

I think he's confusing a woman looking for a cigarette with sexual interest.

Or she's calling you gay. In which case she's inviting you to step up to the plate and prove you are not gay.

cloptrop

OOh Ooh I have a better one.
What if you call a working girl out and she turns up steaming drunk. Demanding payment whether or not you do the deed . Should you forego on the product you were forced to purchase for higher moral standing with your conscience?

Maybe all prostitution is rape . God damn it OP you just opened up a can of worms in my head and there is birds jumping on my head to simulate rain . Now all the worms are going to go to the top and get eaten by the birds. That sorted itself out you may think but what happens when the birds get hungry again and cant find any more worms. Theyll leave me is what theyll do and Ill be left here all alone with a phone number of a lady of the night who Im afraid to ring incase she isnt coherrent when she gets here . Doing me out of a lot of money .

Earthhorse

cloptrop wrote: »

I have a drunk woman in the corner , she is totally wasted but calling me a fag because I wont give her one. Well I think she is calling me a fag , she just keeps blurting out fuuuuuuuuukin ffffffag.
Its a double edged sword this consent thing.

The King of Moo wrote: »

I think he's confusing a woman looking for a cigarette with sexual interest.

token101 wrote: »

Or she's calling you gay. In which case she's inviting you to step up to the plate and prove you are not gay.

cloptrop wrote: »

OOh Ooh I have a better one.
What if you call a working girl out and she turns up steaming drunk. Demanding payment whether or not you do the deed . Should you forego on the product you were forced to purchase for higher moral standing with your conscience?

Maybe all prostitution is rape . God damn it OP you just opened up a can of worms in my head and there is birds jumping on my head to simulate rain . Now all the worms are going to go to the top and get eaten by the birds. That sorted itself out you may think but what happens when the birds get hungry again and cant find any more worms. Theyll leave me is what theyll do and Ill be left here all alone with a phone number of a lady of the night who Im afraid to ring incase she isnt coherrent when she gets here . Doing me out of a lot of money .

Modern love sure is a minefield.

Millicent

cloptrop wrote: »

OOh Ooh I have a better one.
What if you call a working girl out and she turns up steaming drunk. Demanding payment whether or not you do the deed . Should you forego on the product you were forced to purchase for higher moral standing with your conscience?

Maybe all prostitution is rape . God damn it OP you just opened up a can of worms in my head and there is birds jumping on my head to simulate rain . Now all the worms are going to go to the top and get eaten by the birds. That sorted itself out you may think but what happens when the birds get hungry again and cant find any more worms. Theyll leave me is what theyll do and Ill be left here all alone with a phone number of a lady of the night who Im afraid to ring incase she isnt coherrent when she gets here . Doing me out of a lot of money .

This post could have been written by Nicholas Sparks. Truly a romantic tragedy for the ages.

IM0

when you are riding them in their sleep

cloptrop

Millicent wrote: »

This post could have been written by Nicholas Sparks. Truly a romantic tragedy for the ages.

The notebook was gay dude.
Didnt she get drunk and he take advantage of her in that ? Im not sure if Im thinking of the right film . The gay one , thats the one Im thinking of.

Millicent

cloptrop wrote: »

The notebook was gay dude.
Didnt she get drunk and he take advantage of her in that ? Im not sure if Im thinking of the right film . The gay one , thats the one Im thinking of.

And yet, you still knew who wrote it. :pac: Methinks the drunk man doth protest too much!