They really do. Drunk consent isn't consent, and people leave themselves open to accusations of, and convictions for, rape if they have sex with drunk people.
Legally it is.
>people leave themselves open to accusations of, and convictions for, rape if they have sex with drunk people.
People are always open to accusations. I can't find evidence of a single conviction for someone consenting to sex while intoxicated. Only when causing the intoxication in the first place, without consent, does further consent get negated.
references
Arizona: A.R.S. §§ 13-1401 and 13-1406; Illinois: 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-13; Kansas: K.S.A. § 21-3502; Maine: 17-A M.R.S. § 109; Missouri: R.S.Mo. §§ 566.040 and 566.061; and Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. § 940.225.
And claims these as case law for
> • Either statute or case law specifically outlaws having intercourse
> with a person who is too intoxicated to consent.
> In these states,
> the victim’s intoxication negates the element of consent, thereby
> showing that the sexual act occurred without consent.
Is an unconscious person too intoxicated to consent to consent? Most people would say yes, and I imagine the law would concur.
Is a person drifting in and out of consciousness too intoxicated to consent? Most people would say yes.
Is a person who's able to walk, but obviously drunk, too intoxicated to consent? What if you ask them to come to your place to have sex and they agree with a drunken "uhhh yeah uuuhhhh cooool... uuuhhh ok". This is sounding more like real consent but a lot of people would proceed with caution to avoid a bad situation and/or regret.
Is a person who's had a couple of drinks and is exhibiting increased outgoingness and reduced inhibitions too intoxicated to consent? This is where a lot of dates and hookups end up. Most people would say this is OK, but a zealous prosecutor with an axe to grind might be able to make charges stick.
And finally, one presumes that if you're below the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle, you are also able to consent to sex.
There are definitely laws about surreptitiously intoxicating someone, however, which may quickly lead to conviction if proven.
> Legally it is.
Not where I live.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/21/ched-evans-loses-ra...
In April, the 23-year-old striker was jailed for five years for raping a teenager who was too drunk to consent to sex with him
Driver: "Hey man, mind if I run over your leg?" Drunk Person: "mfamhhhhmmhaha sure lesh pud it on youtubes" Driver: looks at camera "You hear that judge and jury?! Consent! Yeeehaw!"
Note you can kill all the people you want in a plain ole traffic accident with practically no punishment compared to using any other weapon... as long as you're not drunk. Heck they don't even municipal cite people for killing bicyclists around here, sometimes. Needless to say I don't ride on the roads or let my kids ride on the roads, that would be pretty dumb to do, given the prevailing conditions.
The issue with consent while drunk isn't about what you do to yourself while drunk: it is about hurting other people. You have the right to get drunk to the point of passing out in front of the stereo with The Cure's worst album at full blast, the dishes undone, leftovers on the stove and that still doesn't give anyone the right to steal your stereo, sharpie your face or fuck you (even if they shake you hard enough to get some vague affirmatory groan out of your body).
Do you acknowledge that there is a level of drunk where you can still sort of walk and talk but all that is really happening is you on autopilot trying to find your bed or just anywhere to sleep? Imagine being in this state among many acquaintances both new and old (which are the typical assailants). Imagine trying to find the safety of a bed and upon half-hearing a friend's offer in a loud place, saying "yes I want to go to bed", and that being misinterpreted? Compare this to being drunk, and seeking out the danger of driving home.
(I deliberately chose The Cure because I only know men who listen to them. Yes, society's norms frame women as passive, but it also makes them actual victims of sexual assault at alarming rates.)
I would agree that if one can "enthusiastically consent" then they are responsible for their actions. The problem is a lot of people would disagree with this, and the law seems murky on the subject. Also considering the fact that one could enthusiastically consent at the time but still be black-out drunk and thus have a different interpretation of how they ended up in bed with a guy.
If your concern is with people who are barely conscious, then we have no argument. However, I would say that the lines you draw in fact dodge the real question here. No one can reasonably consider a half-conscious person to offer consent. The question is really about people who are visibly drunk, not almost comatose, and actually give consent (enthusiastic or not). This is where the dangerous grey area lies. Many people claim that such a person cannot legally consent, whether enthusiastic or not. That is the real question here. I would like such a person's take on the difference between liability from driving and liability for a regrettable lay.