Drunk Sex is Rape
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ย. 2015
- In this video I discuss the problem of sexual assault on campus and suggest more effective ways of trying to address it.
Along the way we get to talk about Aristotle, see a magic trick, discuss the meaning of consent, and think about whether or not minors can consent to sex.
When it comes to consensual-drunken sex, women claim rape or not raped based on how they "FEEL" the next morning. If she likes the guy the next morning, she'll be happy. If she's embarrassed the next morning, she's more likely to claim rape. The guy on the other hand has absolutely no say on whether HE was raped by the girl or not, even though he was drunk too. A lot of women think that ALL drunken sex is rape, which is a pretty moronic statement because it means that no boyfriend or husband can have drunken sex with their partner without it being called rape.
There are so many comments I want to reply to, but when I come to the page the comments don't actually show up here.
Anybody know whats up with that?
Having sex and being intoxicated has been happening since alcohol has been on earth.
Someone incapacitated to the point of being unconscious, asleep, passed out, or close to those.. that can be rape.
But someone just being drunk and can literally verbally agree to sex without falling down or slurring their words to the point of. It even being understandable that’s not rape.
This is dangerous because it relies on if the woman regretted it or not- entirely. I a woman loved it and it was a great experience even though she was drunk she would not label it as rape. The only case I could see where drunk sex is rape is where she is so fucking drunk that she can't even speak or know what's going on, then the man continues to rape her. If she gives consent (engaging in sexual behavior without the use of force is consent, it's not always just a yes) and has sex with him that is not rape or statutory rape. It's too consenting adults having sex. One might regret it, one may not. It's time to put the victimhood complex down and look at it for what it is. Two consenting adults.
Two* dumbest typo of the year, oops
Gotta say I completely agree with your point about it being iffy with putting those two scenarios in the same boat at 1:50. And I've been healing lectures stating that.
Out of curiosity, where did you get the Aristotle reference about explaining morality to children? I assume it's from the Nicomachean Ethics, but I don't remember reading that. Can you point me to a specific place?
I'm away from my books for the weekend but I'll try to remember to flip through them when I get back.
Did anybody make it all the way to the blooper reel?
+Epydemic2020 at least one
Lol @ bloopers
Feminists say that drunk women cannot consent.
But they never apply this to men.Bruh...if both are drunk they still label the guy as a rapist.
juste kevin
if drunk folks can't consent, then two drunk folks who have sex are both committing nonconsenual sex. That would mean both people are rapists.
Yeah. That's why if a women accuses a man of rape ( because she was under the influence) and during the course of the investigation it turns out he was also ( under the influence) she should be immediately charged with rape and get the exact same sentence he does. You would think femminist would be on setting that precedent like white on rice but nope.
The statement "drunken sex is rape" is in the ballpark of enormously important stuff though. I would state those "somethings" as "drunken consent isn't consent," and "consent is more than not saying no, it is persuasive display of desire." The latter principle has been referred to as "enthusiastic consent."
www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/enthusiastic-consent/
+jacob hunt
To say all consent must be enthusiastic consent is a potentially "useful fiction" in my view. It is an attempt to err on the side of caution. In reality, some consent is not enthusiastic, but by pretending all consent must be enthusiastic we hopefully cut down on the number of sexual assaults.
It seems a bit infantilizing.
Sure. A man really wants to have sex, his wife says "ohkay go ahead..."
A man promised his girlfriend they would do it, but he secretly isn't really in the mood. He doesn't say anything and they still get it on.
Heck, they could have the entire experience without verbally communicating at all.
Amazing video :) Thanks
Your solution solves the problem of two drunks meeting at a party and hooking up. But the black and white rules define that as duel rape (both parties being the perpetrator and victim of rape) The way the colleges are going I predict we can see this in the news soon.
I've been watching your journey for a long time. And when the eventual day comes, I will be the first to pat you on the back. Until then, keep soldiering on . . .
Even though you made very interesting points and parallels, (i didn't know Aristotle one.) I still don't think you stated a clear solution. Generally positivism suggests, that laws are not moral/spiritual/religious statements, but rather cold-blooded and strict borders of what you can or can't do. Constitution is surely created with morality involved, but as soon as laws are in action, they are stripped of moral appliances which is THE best way for laws to work. What you are saying is very vague term of "manipulation", and it ends up elective. I can hardly say that almost all of the legal age/non-legal age relationships are manipulative. I'd rather oppose that statement. You also are saying that drunken sex is "taking advantage of", which is in turn VERY VERY unconvincing. What if we both are drunk? (which mostly is the case. Why should a man's position of being drunk be disregarded, when we look at a woman's drunken state as "manipulation"?) also, 80% of the drunken sex is indeed consensual, which is absurd to state the opposite. I think laws should be very clear here. If the girl is unconcious or clearly unable to perceive her surroundings, then it's rape. If not the case shouldnot even be considered. No need to butt in alcohol there. It has nothing to do with it.
On some states and college campuses consent is deemed unable to be given when you are legally drunk. Other states deem consent as impossible when you are incapacitated.
I agree strongly with the latter, but not with the former. I think that while drunken sex is often problematic, I think having sex with a drunk person is wrong for reasons other than "they can't consent".
Legally, there should be no difference between a person with .08% BAC who has sex whether they have sex with their spouse or with a stranger at a party. One spouse having sex with their drunken spouse and a stranger having sex with a drunk person at a party strike me as two potentially morally different situations. The latter seems much more problematic, which makes me think the root of the problem is something other than consent.
The same thing goes for something like a 17 year old in my opinion (and in the view of other countries like Mexico or Brazil). It is a bit insulting to say that a 17 year old can consent to all types of decisions, but isn't competent enough to consent. There are probably 18 year olds that are less mature than some 17 year olds. But alas, despite them likely being able to consent, there are reasons other than "they can't consent" that older people should refrain from having sex with teenagers. I understand the laws willingness to err on the side of caution.
" What if we both are drunk?"
Being drunk makes you easily manipulated, but it does not legally excuse you manipulating others. Being drunk may not remove your ability to say "yes", but it may make you vulnerable enough that having sex with you (even if you said "yes") would be inappropriate. Two people who get drunk and hook up can both land them self in legal trouble. Although, historically, the guy gets in trouble more often in that scenario.
This is a tough topic because so many people considers different things rape. I agree with Aristotle as far as making statements like All killing is wrong but I think we should not tell children it either. I do believe so children can reason to a certain extent. Honestly I don't think all drunk sex is wrong and most people don't. You have people purposely or plan to have drunk sex. I have heard people say that's the only time they get in mood for sex is while they drunk. So it just depends on the situation it is no easy solution. I think it is also misunderstood when it is really consent or not.
If a guy can get drunk and be manipulated to drive the guys home from a bar, should that be DUI for him, or all the guys that he drove home?
when drunk you are still responsible for your actions which endanger others (which is why DUI is illegal).
When drunk you are also especially vulnerable and coercible.
becoming drunk does not excuse the harm you bring to others, but neither does it give others permission to bring harm to you.
+Epydemic2020 Correct. You are still responsible for you actions. I have no doubt about that. When you are drunk you have made yourself vulnerable. But how do you prove harm in these situations? It's very difficult to do. That's the whole problem. How do you prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt in these situations? I totally agree that having sex with a girl that is passed out is rape. But, if two people are drunk, how do you prove that situation is rape? That's very difficult to do, unless there are bruises and other physical evidence that shows force.
+John White
don't have sex with drunk folks for the same reason you don't have sex with minors.
minors are still responsible for the harms they cause, but it is not appropriate to have sex with them.
+Epydemic2020 Right. When you get drunk, you are still responsible. I agree with this. So does the law. If you get drunk, and your friends manipulate you into driving, it won't be an excuse when the police show up. Same think for anyone that has sex. If two drunk people have sex, you can't make a claim the next day that you were manipulated into having sex.
So when a guy gets drunk and wakes up next to a fat nasty chick and remembers nothing it was rape. When he wakes up next to a hot chick it's bragging material? Same for women. Brad Pitt? Brag. Danny devito ? Clearly rape.
yeah we need more sexual assault awareness posters and slogans.. like...
don't get raped, give consent!
or...
give consent. Or else, it's RAPE
+nodvick
I think we just need less telling people what to think and more encouraging people to think deeply.
Of course nothing magically happens to 12 year old in Mexico either. It's an interesting subject. And people over 18 are sometimes easier to take advantage of than many people that are younger. Of course as a Christian the situation is a bit more black and white for you as you know that the Bible teaches that sex outside of marriage is evil.
+Jacob Hood
Around 12 we actually really do start going through some biological and mental changes. Of course it isn't as fast as overnight, but there are some very real differences accruing over time.
I agree the Bible makes premarital sex morally wrong, but some sex is more wrong than others. Even if all premarital sex is wrong, non-consensual sex and/or sexual abuse seems to be more egregious than consensual non-manipulative sex between unmarried folks.
+Epydemic2020 Perhaps, but I think things often are a bit more black and white than many make them out to be. We seem to just be arguing which shade of black is darker.
LOL, is that your college's faculty kitchen? it looks like ours.
Whoa. How could anybody recognize that.
Epydemic2020 Because I work for a Community College. Same sink, same institutionalized colors.
@dustin Allen
You say, "If he is not doing by force it is not rape."
There are other ways of raping a person. Coercion comes to mind.
"Just like drunk driving, if you get in the car while being drunk you are essentially doing it your self (consent) so what ever happens after, like crashing into people, is not excused because she had an impaired judgment."
You are responsible for harm that you cause while drunk driving, this does not mean you consent to harm while you are drunk.
Being drunk certainly does not automatically imply consent. Drunken people are easily manipulated (this is not only referencing women who are drunk, but anyone who is intoxicated).
Regret has no "necessary connection" with rape or sexual assault. It's not impossible to not regret a sexual assault and it is possible to regret consensual sexual activity.
I was with you up until the point where you say it should be considered sexual “assault.” An assault would only apply if you forced or administered the intoxicating agent without their knowledge. That would be the “assault” in the sexual assault. And even though I agree it is morally wrong to take advantage of people who are in a pliable state, as long as you put yourself in that state, I don’t believe you can criminalize such an action. You cannot imbibe yourself out of adulthood… ever. Legally drunk adults can gamble their life savings away in a legal gambling establishment, then have some more drinks, and enter a legally binding marriage contract. Why would you then not be responsible for your decision to have sex while under the influence of a substance that you knowingly administered to yourself?
I also think that classifying such actions as rape, or even just a lesser form of sexual assault, destigmatizing the real thing. It makes rape a joke, another drunken regale of the dumb things we do while intoxicated. “We got so wasted and totally raped each other last night. LOL” Sexual assault becomes a forgivable transgression that conservatively 2/3 of all sexual partners on any given Friday night are guilty of. I think this would only serve to normalize actual sexual assault and would be far more harmful to its victims.
+Mark William
"You cannot imbibe yourself out of adulthood"
I disagree. I would say can never imbibe yourself out of "responsibility for your actions". If you crash a car while drunk, you are still at fault. However, you can become drunk enough to remove your capacity for consent (blackout), or to increase your vulnerability, or to be easily manipulated, or to create a power imbalance, etc.
We seem to agree a drunk person who rapes or sexually assaults another human being is still at fault.
While drunkenness does not excuse you from the harm you cause, it does make harm more easily come to you.
Just because a person is drunk and asking for it does not mean that it is morally permissible or not sexual assault to take advantage. It is the same as a child asking to have sex with an adult, or a patient asking to have sex with their doctor. Drunk people are responsible for their actions, but we are also responsible for the actions we do to them. Some of those actions, if mixed with the exploiting of vulnerability, a power imbalance, or manipulation can be viewed as significantly immoral.
+Epydemic2020
Legally no, you cannot imbibe yourself out of adulthood, and if you are not an active participant then you have not taken any actions to be responsible for. Incapacitated or unconscious people by definition cannot take actions.
"While drunkenness does not excuse you from the harm you cause" I would consider seducing someone, then accusing them of rape, a significant harm that you should not be excused of because you were drunk. And again, immoral does not equal illegal.
Here is where you're wrong. A gambling machine is not capable of seeing oneself in his/her drunken state and deciding "wow, I'm gonna make this person spend all their money." Whereas a RAPIST is. You're forgetting here the rapist portion of the argument. When a man sees a woman drunk, he KNOWS how easy it will be to get her in bed with him, due to lowered inhibitions, possible blackouts and even due to blatant stupidity derived from alcohol. That's when a man makes his move to get the woman to do what he wants. THAT is rape. And I'm not sure where you got your facts, but legally you cannot sign legal documents while drunk. Sex and gambling are 2 very, very different things. It's not wise to compare. Ones judgement may be lowered causing them to spend away life's savings, but when it comes to saying yes to sex while drunk.... If the man played a significant roll in order to get his rocks off, that's rape.
If drunk sex is rape, where do we draw the line? What determines drunk? Everyone responds differently.
Somebody could be in a blackout, but you don't know about it because they are acting and talking normally.
Is sex with a disabled person rape?
is sex with a mentally ill person rape?
Is sex with somebody who has ADHD rape?
Is sex with somebody who is smoking weed rape?
We can all agree that if a women is passed out, asleep, or not walking properly and you sleep with them that could possibly be rape.
I believe the measure would be blood alcohol level, and the idea would be "if you are too drunk to drive then you are too drunk to consent.
@@Testeverything521 thanks for your answer.
But a person too drunk to drive is still held responsible, as the court deems that they consented to getting behind the wheel while drunk.
The court accepts that the drunk driver is capable of making this decision.
So why is sex the only action a woman cannot consent to while drunk?
Either she has the ability to consent or she doesn’t. It can’t be both
@@hiyorisarugaki1830
I think the law is consistent here.
If a drunk person drives a car or commits rape, their drunkness doesn't excuse their behavior.
Just because you are held accountable for your actions doesn't imply that meaningful consent is one of the actions you are currently capable of.
@@Testeverything521
You misunderstood me.
The woman is too drunk to drive=court convicts her of DUI. (They say that being drunk doesn't mean you didn't make that decision) Her actions are her own.
.
But when it comes to sex, the woman verbally and physically consented. But because she was drunk, she was actually raped. She was raped because she cannot consent, as she was drunk.
.
That is the inconsistency.
DUI=you are responsible for your actions.
Sex=You are not responsible for your actions.
i'm not saying you are responsible for being raped. But i am saying you are responsible for your actions, you can still make decisions and choose who you want to have sex with.
.
Your logic means that a women too drunk to drive is raped every time she has sex, even if she initiates it.
It means that every woman who drinks alcohol actually has no agency, is not responsible for their actions, can commit crime, and not be haled responsible.
It means that every woman who drinks alcohol will have sex anybody, and everybody on the planet, while drunk.
But obviously not every woman is raped while drunk, because they say NO.
So if a drunk woman can reject somebody, why didn't the alcohol make her say yes?
Because drunk women do have agency.
They make their own decisions, good or bad.
This whole time i'm referring to a woman that agreed to sex, but according to the law she was actually raped because she was drinking.
I am NOT referring to a man who has sex with a woman incapacitated.
If you get drunk intentionally, and consent to having sex with 1000 men, you was not raped. Because you consented. You choose to drink, you choose to have sex.
It's all your choice.
And before you say: "A woman shouldn't be raped because she drinks" It shows you missed my point AGAIN.
RAPE=sex without consent.
But in my hypothetical, the woman DID consent.
The question is, was she capable of making that decision.
Unless incapacitated she is absolutely capable of making her own decisions.
@@hiyorisarugaki1830
If a sober person gets drunk, they still maintain responsibility for their choices.
Drunk people are still responsible for who they have sex with. That's why drunk people still go to jail if they sexually assault someone. What I'm saying is that a drunk person, while being responsible for their actions, is not able to engage in the action of "saying 'yes" to sex in a way that demonstrates genuine consent".
It's the same way we treat young teens. They are responsible for their actions (if they murder someone they get in trouble), but they can't genuinely consent to sex with an older person. Even if they can say the words "yes" that doesn't mean they gave genuine consent.
Similarly, while drunk people are legally responsible for their choices, entering into legally binding contracts while drunk it not something a drunk person is really capable of doing.
While saying the word "yes" to sex is something a drunk person (or a child) is technically capable of doing, it doesn't represent genuine consent in the eyes of the law. (There are a lot of times that accepting someone's "yes" can get you into a lot of trouble.. your students, subordinates, underage, intoxicated, or pretty much anyone in a vulnerable/coercible position, etc)
There's no contradiction between saying "Drunk people are legally responsible for their actions" and "drunk people cannot offer genuine consent while intoxicated".
This is a good video and I have nothing interesting to say about it.
That comment made me laugh for some reason.
Sorry, drunk sex is not rape. You might think it is morally wrong but it is not rape. A drunken woman is not a child. As an adult,she is capable of giving consent- therefore capable of having sex. She may regret it- she may not. Saying that drunk sex is rape means that all sex while being drunk is rape. So even if a woman enjoyed having sex while being drunk (not blackout drunk) that is rape? Even when a man is drunk and a woman is drunk they raped each other? If he is not doing by force it is not rape. If he did not force alcohol down her thought-she is not being drugged. Just like drunk driving, if you get in the car while being drunk you are essentially doing it your self (consent) so what ever happens after, like crashing into people, is not excused because she had an impaired judgment. Some might say (I've heard this counter argument before) "cars aren't men! Men can take advantage of you" but this is dangerous because none of the responsibility falls on the woman.
You are very, very wrong. If the woman is drunk to a point where she has no capability of having sex, and the mans intention is to "get it in" then that is rape. You cannot legally consent while drunk. You can't sign legal documents, you can not make any decisions of that degree while drunk. How many times have you been near a drunk woman and thought "wow, this would be so easy to get her in bed right now."? It's because we KNOW that a woman doesn't think while drunk. Dustin, your opinion means nothing in a court of law. LAWS have been made regarding this scenario. Laws made by professionals, through extensive scientific research. Go have sex with a drunk girl right now. Then go to jail. Then come back here and tell us all "sorry guys, it still wasn't rape."
But you can drive a car. And if you get pulled over, you go to jail for DUI. So, with this logic, if a woman drives a car while drunk, she can't be convicted of DUI because she can't consent to driving. You can sign legal documents. The questions will be, will a court of law uphold the document. "A woman doesn't think while drunk." Well, are you saying that a guy does? So, if my girlfriend and I go out, I have eight beers, she has four, and we have sex, it's rape?
I don't think you're saying anything the feminist side of this would disagree with, except that you use different language to describe drunken sex. You do not call it rape, but seem to hold every other belief about it that they do. Your only difference with them is semantic.
+ThePuppyTurtle
Do you disagree with "the feminist side"?
I hesitate to talk about what "feminists say", because they come in many different flavors.
+ThePuppyTurtle
Btw, how have you been man?
+Epydemic2020 I actually consider myself a feminist, and I am doing well.
+Epydemic2020 Hey Epy I may have the remedy for the feminist camp: mit.edu/~shaslang/mprg/nussbaumO.pdf
booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/174046809x12544019606067
Also Epy, just for the sake of interesting facts, did you know that feminism originated in philosophy more than 600 years ago, by Catholic nun, pioneering historian, biographer, poet, rhetorician, philosopher and songstress Christine de Pizan?
Let me ask you guys a question: Suppose your girlfriend goes to a party and has sex with a guy there, but she tells you that she got really drunk, so she was raped. She wasn't passed out, so she actually consciously participated in the act. Do you console her for being raped, or do you breakup with her for cheating on you? Could you do both? Personally, I would breakup with her, and not consider it rape. She had to have had some desire to engage in sex with that person even if being drunk helped her to do so.