On this thing called "rape culture"

Maq wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:

If your sexual partner is crying, it's probably a good idea to take a time out and make sure she's okay and consenting. End of.

Exactly. I mean how do you even... you know... maintain if your partner is crying unless you're a goddamn sociopath?

I maintained through puppies crying because they didn't want to be in their crates and even that was difficult... a human being crying? Nope. Hell, 2nd time I had sex with my exwife, I couldn't maintain because of the vague sense that she wasn't into it (she wasn't, but hilarious reason, quick discussion, back to normal after).

DanB wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

At least one part makes sense: When you're full of coke, you're probably not going to judge the situation well enough to understand whether your intended partner is consenting.

I'm going to call bullsh*t on this line of reasoning. With the possible exception of being exceedingly drunk, almost everyone is perfectly capable of reading social cues will high on most readily available recreational drugs.

If someone is a sufficient monster that they would rape someone while on coke then frankly the coke is incidental.

In the broader picture a lot of people's behaviour on drugs is a reflection of the expectations around those drugs. If we continue to expect that people on drugs (coke) can't judge social situations then in turn people on drugs will continue to not bother trying.

I'm willing to concede that I'm potentially monstrous, if that helps, but I've seen enough people making assumptions while drunk/high at parties or clubs that I'm going to continue telling guys to get things figured out while they're sober rather than believe they'll read situations correctly later.

DanB wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

At least one part makes sense: When you're full of coke, you're probably not going to judge the situation well enough to understand whether your intended partner is consenting.

I'm going to call bullsh*t on this line of reasoning. With the possible exception of being exceedingly drunk, almost everyone is perfectly capable of reading social cues will high on most readily available recreational drugs.

I can readily call bullsh*t on that DanB's line of reasoning too. Pretty much every readily available recreational drug explicitly affects your ability to accurately judge and respond to social cues. Weed does (paranoia anyone?), ecstasy definitely does ("I love you, man"), meth does ("f*ck it Jerry, that dude doesn't understand what we're trying to do here, just keep shovelling"), coke does ("we own this f*cking town!"), don't even get me started on psychedelics (ever seen a room full of people tripping balls and literally unable to communicate with each other? I have).

There's a reason you should never have sex with someone for the first time while intoxicated. It's consent-kryptonite.

If you're not allowed to drive after consuming the illicit substance because it might cause you to be unable to correctly react to a situation, you should probably not be having sex after consuming said illicit substance.

Demosthenes wrote:

If you're not allowed to drive because it might cause you to be unable to correctly react to a situation, you should probably not be having sex while doing it.

You might want to reconsider that sentence, or add a f*ckton of caveats. Otherwise, it could apply to conditions such as blindness, epilepsy...

sometimesdee wrote:

You might want to reconsider that sentence, or add a f*ckton of caveats. Otherwise, it could apply to conditions such as blindness, epilepsy...

Well, sh*t. You're right. My apologies on the ableism (spelling may be wrong there, Google Spellcheck is failing me).

It's a pretty Puritanical view of sex, too. The last few posts are dangerously close to "all alcohol/drug fueled sex is rape." And while maybe a case can be made for it in theory, it's Dworkin levels of ideological purity.

Maybe it makes me a Puritan, but yeah, I think consent should come when both parties are sober. I told my brothers that, and I plan to teach my son that.

<-not a lawyer: From a legal standpoint , if nothing else, I think I agree with worsmythe here, I'm pretty sure contract law requires sobriety before one can consent/agree to a contract and indeed the witness, if required, often has to sign stating that the signee was in fact sober.

Sure most people probably don't have a written contract to whip out and clarify things before sex* but nonetheless as far as the law goes I would think the same standard of sobriety would apply to oral consent to engage in a sexual activity.

*maybe they should? outlining what's okay, not okay, acknowledging known STIs, establishing expectations as to pregnancy precautions or lack of, etc

Seth wrote:

It's a pretty Puritanical view of sex, too. The last few posts are dangerously close to "all alcohol/drug fueled sex is rape." And while maybe a case can be made for it in theory, it's Dworkin levels of ideological purity.

And that's why I was careful to qualify it.

Jonman wrote:

There's a reason you should never have sex with someone for the first time while intoxicated. It's consent-kryptonite.

I saw your qualification, which is why I said dangerously close and not actually saying the thing. Thank you for your careful language, btw.

The fact is that reality doesn't reflect this goal in any way, and I'm not sure it should. Our species has been using drugs to have sex since well before this forum was invented, and will continue well after this forum is defunct. Bringing up things like contract law or universal sober consent is just laughable. It's a far more useful expenditure of resources to make the concept of consent sink deep enough into cultural standards that it is considered while intoxicated. Then you only have issues when one or more members suffers memory loss of the consent.

We have standards of intoxication at which point people are no longer capable of giving consent. And yes, if somebody is at that point they cannot give consent, and it is probably rape, whether or not either party can remember things.

And no, that is not ridiculous. That is a thing that everybody should work to avoid.

So no, people don't need to be stone cold sober. But no, being inebriated has limits.

I'm pretty sure I've traversed the whole "consent" concept from a legal perspective in this thread, but to revisit the topic quickly:

- my local crimes statute says consent is "freely and voluntarily given"

- person A knows the other person doesn't consent if (a) they know the other person doesn't consent (i.e. they are expressly rejected); (b) is reckless as to whether person B consents, or (c) has no reasonable grounds for believing person B consents. Oh, and intoxication (alcoholic or by some other drug) is no excuse for failing to obtain consent

- person B does not consent in circumstances where they are unconscious or asleep, threatened or coerced, unlawfully detained, or because of age or cognitive incapacity

- it is open to find that consent was not given if the person has sexual intercourse while "substantially intoxicated by alcohol or any drug"

Link to my local legislation here.

Would be interested if others can link their local legislation so we can compare the texts and see where any differences lie.

The challenge with obtaining and maintaining consent under the influence of alcohol or drugs is that consent is a continuous concept and if both parties are influenced then it becomes very difficult to establish whether Person A took reasonable steps to ascertain and continue to maintain consent throughout; conversely it is also difficult to prove the reverse i.e. that Person B at some point ceased consenting or never consented in the first place. The latter partly explains why rape/sexual assault convictions are relatively low given there are rarely witnesses to the crime other than the accused and the victim.

Jonman, at the risk of generalising and taking your comment out of context, you say that it's alright if it's not the second time when intoxicated. Even then that's not really a foolproof measure because trusting and consenting today may not be the same thing tomorrow or any other day. A husband can still rape a wife years after being married (and the converse applies too).

Safest way for all concerned - steer clear from alcohol and drugs if you are engaging in intercourse, or if you are going to mix them, then best to make sure you and the other party (parties) set a limit on what is imbibed or taken so that the "freely and voluntarily" aspect of consent is unambiguous.

The safest way all around is abstinence. We all know how realistic that ideology is.