None of these "date rape drugs" even come close to comparing to alcohol.
It's the original and most effective date rape drug, and no one even really objects to people using it for that purpose.
Getting people drunk to get them to sleep with you isn't really /wrong./
Once you start using scary drugs that no one has ever heard of, then wow, that's something we can condemn. Especially since no one we know would ever do such a thing.
>> Getting people drunk to get them to sleep with you isn't really /wrong./
It is, sorry.
There's nothing wrong with two people having a few drinks and going to bed together. But it's at the very least creepy to plan to knock someone's inhibitions down that way, or to take advantage of them.
>> It's the original and most effective date rape drug, and no one even really objects to people using it for that purpose.
I'm giving the commenter the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he means that "there's nothing wrong with getting someone hammered to try and sleep with them", he means that "society seems to have a much smaller problem with getting someone hammered to try and sleep with them despite it being the same basic idea as GHB."
Dunno. To me there's a vast differnce between getting pissed and falling into bed with someone as a mutual "WAHEY! let's go for it!" thing and "if I keep buying her drinks maybe she'll get drunk enough to take her top off". The latter seems little better than spiking them.
--edit-- OK so I've read his other comments and it was clearly a comment on society and meant to be taken at anything but face value. I'll be the first to admit that in discussions like these I can easily suffer from a sense of humour failure, if not a complete lack of sarcasm detection.
Is he saying that he uses it that way himself? No.
He's saying that society doesn't view it as negatively as it should... You shouldn't need to lower someones inhibitions for them to sleep with you...
The very fact that you say "it's creepy to lower someones inhibitions that way" only serves to reinforce his point... It's not just "creepy" it's downright fucked up; and for a portion of society it is common-case usage.
OK so I am glad I read this. I wasn't sure how to take your first comment, as is a classic on the net - I read into it emotionally as praise for the actions you described. I'm glad to read that I had the wrong end of the stick.
> There's nothing wrong with two people having a few drinks and going to bed together. But it's at the very least creepy to plan to knock someone's inhibitions down that way, or to take advantage of them.
Is there an objective test, that can be administered by a third party, to differentiate between these two cases? If not, then what?
You mean no one really objects to people drinking enough to make bad decisions with one another, then hating themselves for it so much that they... proceed to go out again and get drunk again and make bad decisions with one another again, and do it over and over and over again?
You might almost think people like sex and alcohol from all this insanity. Next thing you know, they'll be opening up establishments where men and women go to get drunk and pick each other for sloppy drunk scores. That'll be the day...
That's arguable. I think the line between "these friends know each other and have been flirtatious in the past, it's okay that they got drunk one night and hooked up" and "this random person put a date rape drug in that other person's drink so they could take advantage of their state" is extremely large.
I think keevie's comment was referring more to a situation in which two strangers meet, one buys many drinks for the other, and then, once very drunk, gets them into bed. If you ask 100 people if that's wrong to do, I'm pretty confident that you're going to get much more conflicting answers than if you ask them about either of your two examples.
On the one hand, it's basically what a lot of people just take as the norm. They think that's what you're supposed to do at bars. On the other, it also just happens to be a way to make someone much less resistant to doing things they would never do otherwise.
The problem is "drunk" is a range (or "very drunk", as you would have it). Clearly it's wrong to have sex with someone who's passed out. And with someone who's almost passed out. And with someone who's almost almost passed out. After that it gets a bit more murky. How drunk is the other party? Is there an existing relationship?
I don't think people are more tolerant of alcohol because it's more familiar. I think people are more tolerant of it because the imbiber is usually cognizant of what they're drinking, and does so willingly. Having something done to you without your knowledge or consent IS scarier than having someone persuade you to get carried away with something you're already choosing to do.
That's a fair point. I would think that it's a bit of both, rather than either/or. It's worth pointing out though that just because it's less scary doesn't mean it's less problematic.
You are very wrong that no one objects to people using alcohol as a date rape drug, and I don't hesitate to condemn anyone who pressures someone else into drinking in order to control them.
Another reason the attitude you display here is alarming is that it may be difficult to tell the difference between a drunk person and a drugged person. It's not like the victim falls unconscious and the attacker carries them away. Someone who has been slipped GHB might be perceived by the people around them as having gotten drunk deliberately, for example.
> It's the original and most effective date rape drug, and no one even really objects to people using it for that purpose.
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.
>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.
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.
Interestingly, while the statute uses the term too intoxicated to consent, it doesn't define it.
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.
They appear to be begging the question. The statutes in question do not say that drinking negates consent, they say that it is rape if someone is too drunk to consent. You have to look at precedent to try to determine what constitutes "too drunk to consent". It is not a simple case of "oh I was drinking so nothing I say counts" as some like to portray. The law has to be careful because claiming "I was drunk" to get out of consent would also have significant repercussions on other cases, not just rape.
There is no legal definition of "drunk consent". It's up to a jury to decide if a person was too intoxicated to consent. It's also extremely hard to prove, which is part of why rape convictions are rare.
There are definitely laws about surreptitiously intoxicating someone, however, which may quickly lead to conviction if proven.
The analogy you're looking for here is drunk being-run-over, not drunk driving. Consider this illustrative example:
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!"
That's not what he was asking. The question is if someone can be "too drunk to consent" (assuming they are conscious enough to verbally consent, but too drunk for that consent to be valid in the eyes of the law), then why are people held responsible for drunk driving incidents? If the law finds them incapacitated to the point of not being held responsible for their decisions (in this case to have sex, or sign contracts, etc), why are they held responsible for their decision to drive drunk? It's a valid question and I don't think I've ever seen it answered sufficiently.
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.
Because the drunk driver's lack of consent isn't the problem with drunk driving: it's the lack of consent from everyone else on the road.
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).
Your answer implicitly casts the drunk person being acted upon, rather than an actor. I see this a lot and I have a feeling this stems from society's sexist views regarding sex that we've all internalized (men are always the actor, women passive). The point is assuming the drunk person (lets assume a women) is giving "enthusiastic consent", and thus is a "drunk actor" in this situation, why is responsibility invalidated in the case of sex, but not in the case of drunk driving?
Someone capable of enthusiastic consent doesn't have their responsibility invalidated. Where did anyone say that? The important cases are where the consent is marginal -- either temporally separated from the act or given from a person who is borderline comatose. Assuming enthusiastic consent is just assuming away the problem.
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.)
>Assuming enthusiastic consent is just assuming away the problem.
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.
Could you edit your post to clarify what you mean? The comments show this as an example of when not to convey your point using sarcasm, as everybody stopped reading once they read one statement.
I can't edit my post it seems, but yes, I am most definitely being sarcastic here.
I absolutely believe that it is wrong to rape someone, and that getting people drunk to get them to sleep with you is rape.
In my experience, society does not think that, which is why we use phrases like "date rape," and talk about "date rape drugs" without ever mentioning alcohol.
I'll assume you're being sarcastic with the condoning of sexual assault, however one difference is that a person who drinks a lot after being offered said drinks is complicit in their own intoxication, whereas with a date rape drug they are unaware
It's the original and most effective date rape drug, and no one even really objects to people using it for that purpose.
Getting people drunk to get them to sleep with you isn't really /wrong./ Once you start using scary drugs that no one has ever heard of, then wow, that's something we can condemn. Especially since no one we know would ever do such a thing.