Barkley said:
Teeqoz said:
A contract signed while one or both parties were drunk is in most cases not binding. Why can't the same principle apply to consent, which after all is sort of a similar thing?
|
Well until the law says that people that are drunk cannot give consent then it's not rape, even if it was a law does everyone have to take a breathalizer test when giving consent.
Unlike a contract sex doesn't occur over a period of time, consent is given for that particular moment only, you can cancel a contract if drunk fine, but sex has already happened, and it shouldn't be the other persons fault that the other person said they could do something and then regretted it later. There's taking advantage of someone and then there's rape, but if someone explicitly gives consent, it is consent.
If it is rape then sex while drunk should be illegal.
You can't change your mind on consent after the act.
|
The law varies from place to place. Somewhere people can't give consent while they are drunk, other places they can (legally). Clearly this thread isn't about what is defined as rape by law, but what should and shouldn't be.
You don't have to take a breathalizer test for people to tell if you are drunk, and certainly not for other people to know if you have been drinking (which in a social context where drinking often takes place, you'd almost certainly know if the other person had been drinking).
And what I'm saying is that consent given while drunk isn't valid from the start. The signature in a legal contract where one of the parties were drunk is also invalid from the start. However you have to get the contract officially void afterwards. For sex, the consent given by a drunk person isn't valid either, so you can't act on that consent. A drunk person can't consent, just like a drunk person can't sign a valid signature for a binding contract.
This isn't about changing your mind on consent. This is about the consent not being valid to begin with, so it's irrelevant that the drunk person agreed to sex.
