While I agree that Owlington has a ridiculous definition of "initiate," this is a sideshow. The new law doesn't use the word "initiate." The UC policy only uses the word "initiate" in the context of phrases like "initiate a Formal Investigation," never when talking about sexual conduct.
So if a UC administrator is following the policy, they're not looking at who initiated. If you think identifying the person who initiated is important for whatever reason, you should be opposed to this new law and the current UC policies because neither has anything at all to do with who initiated.
YOU defined it as "to begin". Now, justify your statement that *I* began it in the following hypothetical:
Drunk Girl Approaches me and begins flirting. I ignore.
Drunk Girl becomes less subtle, begins feeling me up. I start paying attention because phyiscal contact, but don't express interest.
Drunk Girl Finally comes out and says "Lets go back to my place". I say "eh, I guess that's all right".
Drunk Girl takes us both back to her place. I sit down.
Drunk Girl goes and changes into lengerie.
Drunk girl starts groping me. Despite my intenions otherwise this arouses me because physical sensations are difficult to ignore.
Drunk Girl then starts to perform sex acts on me, with me remaining passive.
At which point did *I* initiate? Why?
At the bold part. What did you think was going to happen?
Sex. Obviously. Agreeing to do it isn't initiating it. Literally every action in the hypothetical was initiated by the drunk girl. There were no actions initiated by me. You really need to invest in a dictionary if you think otherwise.
But, let's change the scenario.
WE're both drunk. Everything else stays the same, but instead of me being sober I'm *also* blackout drunk. But, it's ok, even though we had sex we didn't have sex because neither of us initiated it. Amirite?
Edit: I'm dropping it after this post, because Bitterroot is right, initiation is irrelevant. The reason Owlington is wrong is because he has, for whatever reason, decided that initiation = consent, therefore since drunk girl could not consent, she could not initiate. His definition flies in the face of pretty much every definition ever, but it is what it is.
Agreeing to do it isn't initiating it. Literally every action in the hypothetical was initiated by the drunk girl. There were no actions initiated by me. You really need to invest in a dictionary if you think otherwise.
Unless she physically dragged you over to her house you made a choice here that you were going to have sex with her. This is you initiating sex.
But, let's change the scenario.
WE're both drunk. Everything else stays the same, but instead of me being sober I'm *also* blackout drunk. But, it's ok, even though we had sex we didn't have sex because neither of us initiated it. Amirite?
No and I never said this. I was talking about rape, not all sex ever.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Agreeing to do it isn't initiating it. Literally every action in the hypothetical was initiated by the drunk girl. There were no actions initiated by me. You really need to invest in a dictionary if you think otherwise.
Unless she physically dragged you over to her house you made a choice here that you were going to have sex with her. This is you initiating sex.
Here's a fun question for you. Switch the genders in bLatch's hypothetical:
Drunk Man approaches Girl and begins flirting. Girl ignores.
Drunk Man becomes less subtle, begins feeling her up. Girl starts paying attention because phyiscal contact, but doesn't express interest.
Drunk Man finally comes out and says "Lets go back to my place". Girl says "eh, I guess that's all right".
Drunk Man takes both back to his place. Girl sits down.
Drunk Man goes and changes into underwear.
Drunk Man starts groping girl. Despite girl's intenions otherwise this arouses her because physical sensations are difficult to ignore.
Drunk Man then starts to perform sex acts on girl, with girl remaining passive.
The man initiated before, using the bolded language above, right? So the man was a rapist because he initiated sex with a drunk girl.
Here the girl initiated, right? So the girl is a rapist?
Seems like they both, technically, raped each other with a completely even level of evidence. What do preponderance based judgements do when it's, literally, 50/50? Or when neither believes they've been wronged even if a rule was technically broken?
Really, the only victim here is Jim. Unless he likes to watch.
Jim's a compelling and underdeveloped character. I'll be sure to flesh him out if we have another hypothetical.
Preponderance of the evidence has nothing to do which who can be found "guilty." If the conduct of both Jerry and Jane violates the sexual assault rules, then they can both be found guilty. Preponderance has to do with what evidence the fact-finder is allowed to believe if there's a dispute. But in my hypothetical, all the evidence is undisputedly true, so the standard of proof doesn't matter.
Edit: In terms of what we do when "neither believes they've been wronged even if a rule was technically broken," I suppose the school could institute a rule requiring that the victim actively "press charges" so to speak. But this would almost certainly be regarded as problematic by victim's advocates, since sexual assault and rape victims often do not want to be involved in the prosecution of the perpetrator due to the lingering pain and trauma of the event. Also, what do we do when one or both parties in my hypothetical decide they actively want to "press charges?" Why should their after-the-fact feelings determine whether the act was wrongful at the time? If it was sexual assault, it was sexual assault, regardless of how they feel about it later. If it wasn't, then it wasn't, regardless of how they feel about it later.
I suppose I was thinking of it as a single court case of them vs each other instead of two cases where they each take the role of defendant once each. Humor me though, what do preponderance cases do when its 50/50? No fault?
Unless she physically dragged you over to her house you made a choice here that you were going to have sex with her. This is you initiating sex.
I don't get the distinction you're trying to make here.
Suppose she did physically drag bLatch to her house, then took off his pants and underwear and began to have sex with him, the very fact that he did nothing to prevent this means that he initiated it, yes? He CHOSE to do nothing while she forcibly dragged him to her home, took off his pants and underwear, and began to have sex with him, after all.
Because he's sober and she's drunk. And since she's drunk, she cannot give consent. As such, the person who is capable of giving consent and making rational decisions and what have you is the only one responsible.
In fact, she could literally rape bLatch while drunk and it wouldn't matter. Because she was drunk.
Seems like they both, technically, raped each other with a completely even level of evidence. What do preponderance based judgements do when it's, literally, 50/50? Or when neither believes they've been wronged even if a rule was technically broken?
Really, the only victim here is Jim. Unless he likes to watch.
Jim's a compelling and underdeveloped character. I'll be sure to flesh him out if we have another hypothetical.
Preponderance of the evidence has nothing to do which who can be found "guilty." If the conduct of both Jerry and Jane violates the sexual assault rules, then they can both be found guilty. Preponderance has to do with what evidence the fact-finder is allowed to believe if there's a dispute. But in my hypothetical, all the evidence is undisputedly true, so the standard of proof doesn't matter.
Edit: In terms of what we do when "neither believes they've been wronged even if a rule was technically broken," I suppose the school could institute a rule requiring that the victim actively "press charges" so to speak. But this would almost certainly be regarded as problematic by victim's advocates, since sexual assault and rape victims often do not want to be involved in the prosecution of the perpetrator due to the lingering pain and trauma of the event. Also, what do we do when one or both parties in my hypothetical decide they actively want to "press charges?" Why should their after-the-fact feelings determine whether the act was wrongful at the time? If it was sexual assault, it was sexual assault, regardless of how they feel about it later. If it wasn't, then it wasn't, regardless of how they feel about it later.
I suppose I was thinking of it as a single court case of them vs each other instead of two cases where they each take the role of defendant once each. Humor me though, what do preponderance cases do when its 50/50? No fault?
And, yeah, Jim is an amazing character here
We're talking about credibility determinations, so in the real world it's never going to be spelled out in numbers like 50/50. But conceptually, "preponderance of the evidence" means that the party with the burden of proof (here the university) must prove the necessary facts to be true "more likely than not" (i.e. greater than 50%). If the fact finder thinks there's exactly a 50% chance that a particular fact is true (and not 50.00001% or whatever) then the fact finder is not supposed to credit the fact as true. A 50/50 split goes to the party without the burden of proof.
What is your point? That there were multiple ways that scenario is rape?
Also, I'm positive that's not what "literally" means.
Are you just trolling posting substanceless quips for your own amusement or are you going to address any of the arguments that have been directed to you?
Flame warning. - Blinking Spirit
In your view, can a drunk person ever rape a sober person, or is this impossible because the sober person is always the one who "initiated?"
What happens when we switch the genders in bLatch's hypothetical. Did the girl commit rape?
What happens when both participants are extremely intoxicated?
Please provide some sort of justification or reasoning for your answers.
What is your point? That there were multiple ways that scenario is rape?
Also, I'm positive that's not what "literally" means.
Who is this addressed to?
Presumably it's addressed to magickware99, since the last sentence of that post uses the word "literally." Owlington is saying that if a drunk woman forcibly drags a man to her home and forcibly performs sex acts on him, the man is a rapist if he did not actively resist.
That's why I nearly broke decorum and accused him of trolling. Owlington is expressing absurdly extreme views (which is fine by itself) but he's not even attempting to support those views with reasoned arguments.
I read the first post of this thread. I was excited. I wanted to jump into the legal nitty gritty and explain why this is a horrible law. Bitterroot beat me to it. Fortunately for those lacking formal legal training, Bitterroot explained everything better than I could. Instead I will chime in with a moral objection to this law.
This law coddles college students. It goes forward with the base presumption that college students are hormonal beasts who "hook up" constantly with relative strangers. I had sex with three people all throughout college. One of them lived with me for two years. She was my first and thus far only real love. Going to such great ends in order to protect victims (realistically, woman) reiterates the concept that sex is a predatory act. Young adults should move past these notions in college, not have them reinforced. The very language of the bill treats young adults who are at or around marrying age (in many parts of this country) like children and views their very real and powerful romantic relationships as petty.
I will add one legal quip that I do not think has been addressed yet. I don't see anything wrong with dropping the standard below beyond a reasonable doubt in these hearings. That is a very high legal standard reserved almost exclusively for criminal courts. What I do object to is the complete lack of procedural safeguards for the accused. Matthews v Eldridge set up a test that the government must comply with before denying someone a once granted right (college education has been included in the past, including disciplinary tribunal procedures for students). *The test balances (1) the importance of the interest at stake; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest because of the procedures used, and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the government's interest. If this test fails deprivation of the due process right (here a state college education) is unconstitutional. I think with such lax standards, the ability for 3rd party reporting and the alternatives available to the government to meet the same ends, greater protections for the accused are required. Don't ask me what those should be.
* Stole that sentence verbatim from legal-dictionary.com
Going to such great ends in order to protect victims (realistically, woman)
Thoughful analysis, but I'm gonna keep nitpicking this - men are almost as likely to get raped as women. We need to keep gender out of this as it both colors opinions and is factually incorrect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
I honestly don't get the whole "you cannot give consent if you are drunk" line of argument.
Here's an example of sorts- We clearly consider those who drink and drive to be responsible for their actions. As I understand it, the line of argument goes like this-
You know that you are impaired and incapable of having good judgment/motor skills/response time if you are drunk. Yet you chose to drive while drunk. Therefore you are willingly putting yourself and others at risk, etc, etc, blah blah blah.
But, consider this in the vein of the line of thought that generally comes with "you cannot give consent if you're drunk". If we go with it in the manner that LordOwlingtonIII has, drunk people cannot be faulted because for whatever consequence of their action they're no longer capable of making sound judgment!
And if drunk people cannot be faulted for consequences of their actions, then how do we fault drunk drivers for causing incidences?
At the very least, the way we view drunk drivers as opposed to the way we see drunk people act elsewhere is a double standard, isn't it?
Presumably it's addressed to magickware99, since the last sentence of that post uses the word "literally." Owlington is saying that if a drunk woman forcibly drags a man to her home and forcibly performs sex acts on him, the man is a rapist if he did not actively resist.
There's some weird language being used in this statement and I don't understand the scenario being described. The word "forcibly" by definition, implies resistance.
I see what you're saying, and when you compare "you can't give consent if you're drunk" to drink-driving laws, it does seem odd.
So let's start with the extreme to investigate whether there are levels of drunkenness at which you can't give consent.
- If someone's so drunk they've passed out, should that constitute consent?
- If someone's so drunk they've _almost_ passed out, and they slur something that might be 'yeeeeeesh' when asked to participate in sex, should that constitute consent?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I see what you're saying, and when you compare "you can't give consent if you're drunk" to drink-driving laws, it does seem odd.
I don't disagree. I think part of the problem is that "Person A got me drunk and then had intercourse with me", is something that actually happens, whereas "Person A got me drunk and then forced me to drive my car" doesn't.
I honestly don't get the whole "you cannot give consent if you are drunk" line of argument.
Here's an example of sorts- We clearly consider those who drink and drive to be responsible for their actions. As I understand it, the line of argument goes like this-
You know that you are impaired and incapable of having good judgment/motor skills/response time if you are drunk. Yet you chose to drive while drunk. Therefore you are willingly putting yourself and others at risk, etc, etc, blah blah blah.
But, consider this in the vein of the line of thought that generally comes with "you cannot give consent if you're drunk". If we go with it in the manner that LordOwlingtonIII has, drunk people cannot be faulted because for whatever consequence of their action they're no longer capable of making sound judgment!
And if drunk people cannot be faulted for consequences of their actions, then how do we fault drunk drivers for causing incidences?
At the very least, the way we view drunk drivers as opposed to the way we see drunk people act elsewhere is a double standard, isn't it?
It's not even just drunk driving... for any criminal act being drunk is not an excuse. You can't shoot someone while drunk and claim "oopsies! not my fault" or rob a bank while drunk... heck you can't even use drunkenness to back out of purchases.
Now on the flip side... lets say I am a used car salesman and somehow I manage to get you drunk while you are browsing my lot. Then knowing you are drunk I convince you that you really need a convertible with leather seats when what you really wanted was a mini-van. I could see reason to allow recourse. The seller caused and took advantage of your drunkenness. On the other hand if you are drunk and come it and demand a convertible and the salesman sells you exactly what you came in and asked for is that wrong to do?
I see what you're saying, and when you compare "you can't give consent if you're drunk" to drink-driving laws, it does seem odd.
I don't disagree. I think part of the problem is that "Person A got me drunk and then had intercourse with me", is something that actually happens, whereas "Person A got me drunk and then forced me to drive my car" doesn't.
I do think some ethical quandries arise when it's swapped a bit to
*I* got me so drunk, then had intercourse with person B.
*I* got me so drunk, then drove a car.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that it's morally reprehensible to get someone drunk/give them alcohol to change their mind (and I recognize that that does happen). I do think that at least some people will be willing to argue, that if you got yourself drunk, of your own volition, then it was your choice to make impaired decisions.
I do think that at least some people will be willing to argue, that if you got yourself drunk, of your own volition, then it was your choice to make impaired decisions.
This is more or less what I'm getting at.
We use this exact line of thought to prosecute drunk drivers and people who do criminal acts while drunk as Fluffy_Bunny wrote.
But as soon as it's a woman drunk at a party, she is apparently incapable of giving consent.
And, if you take it as far as LordOwlingtonIII does, anything she cannot be blamed for anything she chooses to do while she is drunk.
GoblinGrenadier wrote that this law coddles college students. I'd be willing to take that a step further and argue that these kinds of laws are coddling women in general. The fact is men get raped too, though I don't know if it's quite on the level that DokoDokuH says (largely since I haven't bothered to read statistics on it). Yet virtually all of these things are targeted towards women.
I'd be willing to argue that this really is just an extension of treating women as though they're porcelain dolls. I can't reconcile the seeming double standard of "drunk drivers can be considered responsible for actions they committed while drunk" and "drunk women cannot be considered responsible for actions they committed while drunk".
I don't disagree. I think part of the problem is that "Person A got me drunk and then had intercourse with me", is something that actually happens, whereas "Person A got me drunk and then forced me to drive my car" doesn't.
Well, I'm not talking about force in my drunk driving comparison. Rather, I'm talking about responsibility.
As such, it would be proper to put it as-
Situation 1- "Person A got drunk and chose to have intercourse with Person B"
Situation 2- "Person A got drunk and chose to drive his/her car"
We are heading towards a reality where Person A cannot be considered responsible for her (yes, I deliberately use "her" here) action in situation 1, where she is punished with the full extent of the law in situation 2 if she is caught by the police.
It also sets a sort of weird president that if you get so drunk that you act in an abnormal way then it's ok everyone else should "accept"/"Deal" with that. Where in my mind I would think we would want people to try to not put themselves in those situations. If you are super drunk at a party you should have a friend around that will stop you from doing dumb things if you don't have someone you trust to keep you from doing dumb things you should not get so drunk that you lose control.
Most cars (although I think there actually are some now that do) cannot recognise impaired capabilities in their driver.
Humans _can_ recognise impairment to some degree, though, and have a responsibility to do so. If you see a friend about to drive drunk, you have a moral responsibility to prevent them, and (at least here) there are advertising campaigns to that effect. If someone who is clearly intoxicated to the point that it is affecting their decision-making comes on to you, you should at least consider the possibility that it is something they would regret when sober, and refrain (but hey, get their number, because they might still be interested when they sober up).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So if a UC administrator is following the policy, they're not looking at who initiated. If you think identifying the person who initiated is important for whatever reason, you should be opposed to this new law and the current UC policies because neither has anything at all to do with who initiated.
Sex. Obviously. Agreeing to do it isn't initiating it. Literally every action in the hypothetical was initiated by the drunk girl. There were no actions initiated by me. You really need to invest in a dictionary if you think otherwise.
But, let's change the scenario.
WE're both drunk. Everything else stays the same, but instead of me being sober I'm *also* blackout drunk. But, it's ok, even though we had sex we didn't have sex because neither of us initiated it. Amirite?
Edit: I'm dropping it after this post, because Bitterroot is right, initiation is irrelevant. The reason Owlington is wrong is because he has, for whatever reason, decided that initiation = consent, therefore since drunk girl could not consent, she could not initiate. His definition flies in the face of pretty much every definition ever, but it is what it is.
There we go! Unless she physically dragged you over to her house you made a choice here that you were going to have sex with her. This is you initiating sex.
No and I never said this. I was talking about rape, not all sex ever.
Here's a fun question for you. Switch the genders in bLatch's hypothetical:
The man initiated before, using the bolded language above, right? So the man was a rapist because he initiated sex with a drunk girl.
Here the girl initiated, right? So the girl is a rapist?
I suppose I was thinking of it as a single court case of them vs each other instead of two cases where they each take the role of defendant once each. Humor me though, what do preponderance cases do when its 50/50? No fault?
And, yeah, Jim is an amazing character here
I don't get the distinction you're trying to make here.
Suppose she did physically drag bLatch to her house, then took off his pants and underwear and began to have sex with him, the very fact that he did nothing to prevent this means that he initiated it, yes? He CHOSE to do nothing while she forcibly dragged him to her home, took off his pants and underwear, and began to have sex with him, after all.
Because he's sober and she's drunk. And since she's drunk, she cannot give consent. As such, the person who is capable of giving consent and making rational decisions and what have you is the only one responsible.
In fact, she could literally rape bLatch while drunk and it wouldn't matter. Because she was drunk.
Also, I'm positive that's not what "literally" means.
We're talking about credibility determinations, so in the real world it's never going to be spelled out in numbers like 50/50. But conceptually, "preponderance of the evidence" means that the party with the burden of proof (here the university) must prove the necessary facts to be true "more likely than not" (i.e. greater than 50%). If the fact finder thinks there's exactly a 50% chance that a particular fact is true (and not 50.00001% or whatever) then the fact finder is not supposed to credit the fact as true. A 50/50 split goes to the party without the burden of proof.
Are you just
trollingposting substanceless quips for your own amusement or are you going to address any of the arguments that have been directed to you?Flame warning. - Blinking Spirit
Please provide some sort of justification or reasoning for your answers.
Who is this addressed to?
Presumably it's addressed to magickware99, since the last sentence of that post uses the word "literally." Owlington is saying that if a drunk woman forcibly drags a man to her home and forcibly performs sex acts on him, the man is a rapist if he did not actively resist.
That's why I
nearlybroke decorum and accused him of trolling. Owlington is expressing absurdly extreme views (which is fine by itself) but he's not even attempting to support those views with reasoned arguments.The point of the post is that I don't get the distinction you're trying to make, as I outright wrote in the post...
It matters because it helps to explain how a rapist can't use the law to charge their victim with rape.
I feel it is prudent to ask quote/re-ask the above.
This law coddles college students. It goes forward with the base presumption that college students are hormonal beasts who "hook up" constantly with relative strangers. I had sex with three people all throughout college. One of them lived with me for two years. She was my first and thus far only real love. Going to such great ends in order to protect victims (realistically, woman) reiterates the concept that sex is a predatory act. Young adults should move past these notions in college, not have them reinforced. The very language of the bill treats young adults who are at or around marrying age (in many parts of this country) like children and views their very real and powerful romantic relationships as petty.
I will add one legal quip that I do not think has been addressed yet. I don't see anything wrong with dropping the standard below beyond a reasonable doubt in these hearings. That is a very high legal standard reserved almost exclusively for criminal courts. What I do object to is the complete lack of procedural safeguards for the accused. Matthews v Eldridge set up a test that the government must comply with before denying someone a once granted right (college education has been included in the past, including disciplinary tribunal procedures for students). *The test balances (1) the importance of the interest at stake; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest because of the procedures used, and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the government's interest. If this test fails deprivation of the due process right (here a state college education) is unconstitutional. I think with such lax standards, the ability for 3rd party reporting and the alternatives available to the government to meet the same ends, greater protections for the accused are required. Don't ask me what those should be.
* Stole that sentence verbatim from legal-dictionary.com
Thoughful analysis, but I'm gonna keep nitpicking this - men are almost as likely to get raped as women. We need to keep gender out of this as it both colors opinions and is factually incorrect.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Here's an example of sorts- We clearly consider those who drink and drive to be responsible for their actions. As I understand it, the line of argument goes like this-
You know that you are impaired and incapable of having good judgment/motor skills/response time if you are drunk. Yet you chose to drive while drunk. Therefore you are willingly putting yourself and others at risk, etc, etc, blah blah blah.
But, consider this in the vein of the line of thought that generally comes with "you cannot give consent if you're drunk". If we go with it in the manner that LordOwlingtonIII has, drunk people cannot be faulted because for whatever consequence of their action they're no longer capable of making sound judgment!
And if drunk people cannot be faulted for consequences of their actions, then how do we fault drunk drivers for causing incidences?
At the very least, the way we view drunk drivers as opposed to the way we see drunk people act elsewhere is a double standard, isn't it?
There's some weird language being used in this statement and I don't understand the scenario being described. The word "forcibly" by definition, implies resistance.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/forcibly
So let's start with the extreme to investigate whether there are levels of drunkenness at which you can't give consent.
- If someone's so drunk they've passed out, should that constitute consent?
- If someone's so drunk they've _almost_ passed out, and they slur something that might be 'yeeeeeesh' when asked to participate in sex, should that constitute consent?
I don't disagree. I think part of the problem is that "Person A got me drunk and then had intercourse with me", is something that actually happens, whereas "Person A got me drunk and then forced me to drive my car" doesn't.
It's not even just drunk driving... for any criminal act being drunk is not an excuse. You can't shoot someone while drunk and claim "oopsies! not my fault" or rob a bank while drunk... heck you can't even use drunkenness to back out of purchases.
Now on the flip side... lets say I am a used car salesman and somehow I manage to get you drunk while you are browsing my lot. Then knowing you are drunk I convince you that you really need a convertible with leather seats when what you really wanted was a mini-van. I could see reason to allow recourse. The seller caused and took advantage of your drunkenness. On the other hand if you are drunk and come it and demand a convertible and the salesman sells you exactly what you came in and asked for is that wrong to do?
I do think some ethical quandries arise when it's swapped a bit to
*I* got me so drunk, then had intercourse with person B.
*I* got me so drunk, then drove a car.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that it's morally reprehensible to get someone drunk/give them alcohol to change their mind (and I recognize that that does happen). I do think that at least some people will be willing to argue, that if you got yourself drunk, of your own volition, then it was your choice to make impaired decisions.
This is more or less what I'm getting at.
We use this exact line of thought to prosecute drunk drivers and people who do criminal acts while drunk as Fluffy_Bunny wrote.
But as soon as it's a woman drunk at a party, she is apparently incapable of giving consent.
And, if you take it as far as LordOwlingtonIII does, anything she cannot be blamed for anything she chooses to do while she is drunk.
GoblinGrenadier wrote that this law coddles college students. I'd be willing to take that a step further and argue that these kinds of laws are coddling women in general. The fact is men get raped too, though I don't know if it's quite on the level that DokoDokuH says (largely since I haven't bothered to read statistics on it). Yet virtually all of these things are targeted towards women.
I'd be willing to argue that this really is just an extension of treating women as though they're porcelain dolls. I can't reconcile the seeming double standard of "drunk drivers can be considered responsible for actions they committed while drunk" and "drunk women cannot be considered responsible for actions they committed while drunk".
Well, I'm not talking about force in my drunk driving comparison. Rather, I'm talking about responsibility.
As such, it would be proper to put it as-
Situation 1- "Person A got drunk and chose to have intercourse with Person B"
Situation 2- "Person A got drunk and chose to drive his/her car"
We are heading towards a reality where Person A cannot be considered responsible for her (yes, I deliberately use "her" here) action in situation 1, where she is punished with the full extent of the law in situation 2 if she is caught by the police.
Why the difference?
Humans _can_ recognise impairment to some degree, though, and have a responsibility to do so. If you see a friend about to drive drunk, you have a moral responsibility to prevent them, and (at least here) there are advertising campaigns to that effect. If someone who is clearly intoxicated to the point that it is affecting their decision-making comes on to you, you should at least consider the possibility that it is something they would regret when sober, and refrain (but hey, get their number, because they might still be interested when they sober up).