nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Consent, sex, and alcohol.

strobe

There have been a couple of threads on here just recently related to this topic but neither were focusing specifically on it. So I figured I'd start one and get a dialogue going, see what opinions people hold on it.

So, it's Friday again, the weekend is here and all over the country thousands of people will be heading out, having a few drinks, hooking up with people they meet out and having sex with them. All good fun and a fine way to enjoy ones self after a week of hard work in my opinion.

But there seems to be a certain amount of ambiguity amongst people in relation to consent in regards of sex and how alcohol effects that. When is/should someone be considered 'too drunk to consent'?

In another thread in one of the other forums the topic came up as well and I tried to word what I felt the phrase 'too drunk to consent' meant to me. I came up with 'I'd consider a person to be too drunk to consent if they were non-communicative and/or not actively engaging in the act'. I based this 'definition' off when I felt I would consider myself to have been too drunk to consent.

So I was wondering what the phrase 'too drunk to consent' means to others? What do people think of my explanation of what it means to me above?

(Now I have a feeling this thread could potentially be quite volatile, and I know this is AH, but I think it could be a pretty interesting and informative discussion if people are willing to listen to each other and be reasonable, which does happen in AH more than people give us credit for. So that's why I'm putting it here and not another forum. It's also a pretty important topic to put out there for discussion I think considering how often sexual encounters tend to include alcohol here.)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

FatherLen

i dont understand the question

stupidusername

Your definition would be pretty spot on to me

I'll have to try harder to come up with an argumentative statement

Rocky_Dennis

FatherLen wrote: »

i dont understand the question

You sir, are too drunk to have sex then.

D1stant

It's Friday. I consent to both

El Guapo!

FatherLen wrote: »

i dont understand the question

Just have another drink and I'll tell you later

Immaculate Pasta

Are you coming onto me?

Dravokivich

Simply "If anyone doesn't have a clue what's going on, they are not able to consent to it."

John Doe1

"If she's still standing , put the hand in"-John Doe1

Dudess

I'd agree with you Strobe - being absolutely out of it. Incapable of speaking properly, falling all over the place - even if such a person slurred that they'd be up for sex, the other person shouldn't do anything. Doesn't matter whether the drunk person is male or female. It's not like it would be much of a shag anyway.

The King of Moo

That sounds like a pretty good definition, but it's difficult to come up with a definitive answer.

Everyone reacts differently to alcohol, and some people can appear to be fairly rational when drunk but could in fact be completely fluthered in their heads.

I'd say anyone who's showing clear signs of their behaviour being quite abnormal for them (again, very individual and hard to judge) is probably not capable of giving 100% rational consent.

stupidusername

Dravokivich wrote: »

Simply "If anyone doesn't have a clue what's going on, they are not able to consent to it."

but the problem with that is a person can seem coherent at the time, but wake up the next day not remembering a thing. so is that really someone who is of sound mind to be able to consent? hence the part about actively engaging being important...

token101

How about we just agree it's not rape unless you leave via a window or the fire escape?

:pac:

El Guapo!

I'd say if the person can't stand and can barely string a sentence together then it's a no no. But the problem then is if both people are in that state, who's at fault? Usually the bloke would get the blame.

gcgirl

It would be like shagging a corpse but like ted bundy there is obvisously necrophiliacs and they get their buzz out off shagging something that's still and lifeless not me

Dravokivich

stupidusername wrote: »

Dravokivich wrote: »

Simply "If anyone doesn't have a clue what's going on, they are not able to consent to it."

but the problem with that is a person can seem coherent at the time, but wake up the next day not remembering a thing. so is that really someone who is of sound mind to be able to consent? hence the part about actively engaging being important...

Eh... you aren't going to be very active if you don't know what's going on.

Dudess

Dean09 wrote: »

I'd say if the person can't stand and can barely string a sentence together then it's a no no. But the problem then is if both people are in that state, who's at fault? Usually the bloke would get the blame.

Would two people in that condition really manage sex though?

El Guapo!

Dudess wrote: »

Dean09 wrote: »

I'd say if the person can't stand and can barely string a sentence together then it's a no no. But the problem then is if both people are in that state, who's at fault? Usually the bloke would get the blame.

Would two people in that condition really manage sex though?

I agree that 9 times out of 10 for the bloke itd be like playing snooker with a rope but it can happen.

stupidusername

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh... you aren't going to be very active if you don't know what's going on.

well what I mean is that you can seem to know what's going on at the time, but not know what happened the next day..... that way someone may have gone ahead and done something, but if you don't remember what went on then couldn't it be a very blurry line. as in the newspaper in the other thread.

mackg

Dudess wrote: »

Would two people in that condition really manage sex though?

I've no doubt it happens.

Great post from the Ched Evans thread on the issue:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78307412&postcount=698

hondasam

If either male or female are stupid drunk, unable to undress themselves not to mind anyone else then they are not sober enough to consent to sex.
If anyone changes their mind in the morning saying they ''don't remember'' then how do they know they did not consent, this is when both parties are intoxicated.

Dudess

Dean09 wrote: »

like playing snooker with a rope

Great analogy.

token101

gcgirl wrote: »

It would be like shagging a corpse but like ted bundy there is obvisously necrophiliacs and they get their buzz out off shagging something that's still and lifeless not me

Ted Bundy lives in Egypt now

karl_m

Dean09 wrote: »

I agree that 9 times out of 10 for the bloke itd be like playing snooker with a rope but it can happen.

Two and a half men quote, Pure brilliance

El Guapo!

karl_m wrote: »

Dean09 wrote: »

I agree that 9 times out of 10 for the bloke itd be like playing snooker with a rope but it can happen.

Two and a half men quote, Pure brilliance

That was around long before Two and a half Men!!

PK2008

Look lads, no matter how may pints ye have ye cant be doing the raping.

Earthhorse

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'd say anyone who's showing clear signs of their behaviour being quite abnormal for them (again, very individual and hard to judge) is probably not capable of giving 100% rational consent.

I'd agree with this. The person doesn't have to be incoherent, just at the point where you feel their judgement is compromised. That's a hard call to make in a very small number of cases, especially when your own judgement is compromised or when the person is someone who shows little signs of being effected but wakes up the next day remembering next to nothing, as stupidusername said, in which case, their judgement probably was compromised at the time.

Monty Burnz

The King of Moo wrote: »

That sounds like a pretty good definition, but it's difficult to come up with a definitive answer.

Everyone reacts differently to alcohol, and some people can appear to be fairly rational when drunk but could in fact be completely fluthered in their heads.

I'd say anyone who's showing clear signs of their behaviour being quite abnormal for them (again, very individual and hard to judge) is probably not capable of giving 100% rational consent.

The problem is that you'd probably have to make this judgement after a skinful yourself.

The King of Moo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The problem is that you'd probably have to make this judgement after a skinful yourself.

Particularly in Ireland, which is why it's really difficult to determine levels of consent, except in cases where someone's obviously incredibly drunk and incapable of giving any kind of consent at all.

Dravokivich

stupidusername wrote: »

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh... you aren't going to be very active if you don't know what's going on.

well what I mean is that you can seem to know what's going on at the time, but not know what happened the next day..... that way someone may have gone ahead and done something, but if you don't remember what went on then couldn't it be a very blurry line. as in the newspaper in the other thread.

If someone doesn't recollect what happened the following day. That is there issue. If I was doing it with someone and they were clearly indicating they wanted it and participating as well. Then that would be consent. If I was starting it with someone and they weren't clearly indicating they wanted it, weren't active in it, didn't know what was going on, then there is no consent.

Adding in the chance that someone would wake up the following day and not remember it is very far from what I'd be able to tell after a night with someone.

newmug

gcgirl wrote: »

It would be like shagging a corpse but like ted bundy there is obvisously necrophiliacs and they get their buzz out off shagging something that's still and lifeless not me

token101 wrote: »

Ted Bundy lives in Egypt now

What are you on about?