Comment by analognoise
4 years ago
Doesn't this remove agency from women?
If two adults get together, fly together, get a room together, drink wine together, have relations... Then we're supposed to say that consent can't be given because the woman is drunk. But they're both drunk. Isn't it essentially the patriarchy to say that a woman can't make that choice? Like if they're equals and they're both drunk, why do we blame the men?
Because they aren't really equals? Isn't that what we're fighting against? We blame the men for not ignoring the wishes of the woman while drunk. It's a little bit chauvinistic to think the men know better isn't it?
At least here in California (and presumably much of the US) the threshold isn't merely intoxication. It's intoxication to the point that someone is incapable of consent. Not impaired judgment or above the legal driving limit, but drunk to the point that they are not even capable of giving a yes/no. If two people are drunk and have sex, evidently at least one of them was capable of consent because they had the capacity to initiate sex.
Thanks for the clarification, I didn't know that.
So neither of them would classify, in this story?
So it was just two consenting adults, and the part about wine was... Flavor text, essentially? Unless she was saying she was unconscious and I missed it.
I thought the implication there was essentially that she couldn't give consent, which is a rape accusation - that's very serious. But it doesn't sound like either of them would pass the bar for inability to give consent?
Unless I read it wrong.
People have the capacity to initiate all sorts of stupid things when they are too intoxicated to consent to anything legally.
Maybe in the case of financial agreements or other contracts, but that's not how sexual consent works with respect to alcohol. Otherwise, what happens if two people are both drunk and they both have sex? They're both simultaneously victims of and perpetrators of rape?
The above commenter is insinuating that society applies a double standard here: that if an intoxicated man and woman have sex, the former is considered a perpetrator while the latter is considered a victim. That is incorrect, both are treated equally in the eyes of the law. This scenario doesn't happen because if two people had sex at least one was sober enough to decide to have sex. This situation where two people are intoxicated to the point where they are incapable of consenting have sex cannot occur.
Here's the actual law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
> A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
> The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
Pretty much, yes. Women are held to the same standard as children in situations like. Sharing a room with a male stranger? How could she possibly know something was wrong. Poor, sweet, innocent woman.
The man is expected to be the adult.
It's not supposed to be fair, the women are always right
Consent is too often treated as this magical concept that makes everything right when it's present in some form. Many people seem to think of consent as a "yes" when often it's more a lack of "no". Someone not protesting or going along with something doesn't absolve the other party of responsibility. Heck, even explicit consent doesn't do that. Would you accept someone repeatedly offering another person in their company drugs when that person hasn't outright refused them but not really shown interest either?
When someone goes along with something but ends up feeling uncomfortable or even resentful about it, they can talk about it with the other party. And that party should acknowledge it. They may have meant no harm or even be surprised or feel hurt, but a decent person would consider the other's feelings and admit they may have had poor judgement. This Jon Pretty guy allegedly has a pattern of maneuvering women into vulnerable positions, inappropriately bragging about his "conquests" and from what multiple sources confirm shows a bunch of telltale signs of an emotional abuser and manipulator. It wasn't one instance of them being drunk, it was an extensive period of pushing boundaries, coercion and probably gaslighting.
You'll always hear questions along these lines. "Why did she stay around him if she was uncomfortable/mistreated/abused?" "Why did she wait so long to talk about it if it bothered her so much?" "Why didn't she collect proof?" "Why didn't she just say no?" These questions interpret the situation as far too simple. Abusers are great at creating doubt. They do something wrong, they make their victims feel as equal accomplices. Good and fun times are alternated with bad ones. They don't outright break the law or force someone but will push boundaries and wear someone down repeatedly to get their way despite the discomfort of the other.
That's why it's so hard for a victim to come forward. It's exactly because everyone says "well you didn't set hard boundaries, did you?" It's because maybe no crime was committed according to the letter of the law so they don't feel like they really have a case to make. It's because the victim initially feels like they share as much responsibility or it's their own fault and they should have known better. Abusers are great at walking that line where they get what they want while still maintaining plausible deniability, making it impossible to fully dismiss the argument that the other person is responsible too. It lets them justify their actions to themselves and others, believing it was as much the agency of the other party as their own. Meanwhile they're constantly using a position of power and a victim's weaknesses to manufacture precisely the situation they want.
They call them predators for a reason. It's cause they seek out prey. They know what to look for in a potential target. Don't blame a victim for being possibly naive, inexperienced or easy to sway when those were exactly the preconditions to be taken advantage of. It doesn't justify someone doing just that.
Yes
No, why on earth would it?
It seems like everyone is equal, until everyone is drunk, then the women need to be treated like children and protected.
Which is the very thing feminism was fighting AGAINST - having men make decisions for you. Then we blame men, say they need to do better.
That seems ridiculous.
> then the women need to be treated like children and protected.
Mate, no. This applies to men, women, nonbinary folks, non-human animals, etc. Literally any living thing. If you don't consent, anyone having sex with you is wrong. It's wrong if a man tries to have sex with a drunk, non-consenting person, and it's wrong if a women tries to have sex with a drunk, non-consenting person.
This is the _opposite_ of making a decision for someone. It's recognizing that they kind of _can't_ make a decision, so you simply do nothing.
4 replies →
The guy was a predator, there was a clear pattern of sexual and emotional abuse.
5 replies →