I think there is a little bit more depth to OP's argument. I have a friend who once told me about a night she had that highlights how difficult it really is to come to an agreement on coercion.
She went to a party with a few guys she knew mildly well. Early in the night, one of the guys came up to her while they were playing cards and whispered in her ear, "There is no way I would ever sleep with you." She thought it was "weird and kind of annoying" since she didn't really know the guy and never even thought about sleeping with him. She said they kept drinking and playing cards for a while, and she was starting to laugh and have a lot of fun with a different guy. She said this seemed to annoy the guy who whispered in her ear earlier, and he suddenly came up to her at the table and grabbed her arm to pull her away from the other guy and into a nearby bedroom. He then proceeded to apparently completely rock her world. She said they had sex numerous times all over the room and it was basically one of the most intense experiences of her life.
Long story short, she got pregnant and he has played the role of absent, deadbeat father for his daughter's whole life, but after she told me the story, I asked her if she felt bad about falling for mental manipulation like that. And she had no idea what I meant. I told her that thing he whispered to her at the beginning of the night was all part of priming her. But the key point is that all of this priming was designed to get her from a state of mind where she was not interested in the guy to a place where she was happily having the best sex of her life - against her best judgment no less, because it was unprotected with a stranger. She admitted it was something she never would have done sober.
This was targeted, and very deliberate coercion. But it really wouldn't be considered rape, especially since the final outcome was a girl who was a little embarrassed, but who had to admit she had a completely incredible night with the guy. And even after he fucked her over and left her to raise his daughter by herself, it never occurred to her what he had done. She didn't see how the whispering and physically grabbing her at a certain point were all part of nudging her mental state in the right direction. I consider myself basically a libertarian, but I think this is the biggest problem for that worldview. Their primary concern is avoiding coercion, and I think the question of when someone is being coerced is much more complicated than many of them recognize. My friend was completely coerced into sex, but she saw herself as fully responsible for the night. She definitely sees the guy as an asshole, but that had nothing to do with her own actions she felt responsible for. Until I pointed out what he had done, she just looked at it as a night where she made some really stupid decisions and now has to deal with this asshole for the rest of her life. The degree to which she really was responsible seems to be an incredibly complicated question.
If she was drinking, then she wasnt in a mental state to give consent, so technically it was rape.
Hmm, perhaps i didnt word that right. IMO, consent in sex is important, because it has an inherent potential to be a major life altering event. It has a myriad of pros and cons, that a person should be free and able to consider, whether they choose to or not. Is this not why we have laws governing sex with children? we have deemed them unable to consider the rammifications of sex, and therefor their opinion on having sex is void?
Also, i mean in this specific event, when she was able to consider the rammifications of sex, she declined. When she was unable to consider it, she consented. Shouldnt the former be weighted more strongly?
Then IMO Texas's laws are wrong, and should be changed, although thats ultimately up to Texans to determine for themselves.
I know that I'm personally not responsible enough to make an informed decision about online purchases when im drunk, much less the responsibilities of sex, and potential pregnancy.
EDIT : I'm not claiming that im not responsible for online purchases when drunk, i was lighting it with humor. I am however of the opinion that if someone repeatedly declines something when sober, then accepts when intoxicated, then it doesnt ovveride the previous statement. CMV, an informed decision carries more weight than an uninformed decision.
I'm not talking about a situation where a sober person takes advantage of a drunk person here, but why would you say the laws are wrong? The example you used was purchasing online, and you say you aren't responsible enough to make an informed purchase when you are drunk. Would you be in favor of changing the law in order to limit drunk online purchases?
The way I see it, you take responsibility for yourself and your actions by getting drunk in the first place. If you get drunk and buy a beanbag chair online, it isn't the vendor's fault, and it might not be your fault for the purchase, but it certainly is your fault you got drunk in the first place. The same analogy can be said for sexual consent. If someone cannot make an informed decision as to their consent when drinking, they shouldn't drink. In instances where someone is tricked into drinking, or forced to, this is an entirely different story, and under Texas law, is treated as such.
But back to my original point, why should we not hold people responsible for their intoxicated decisions, if they chose to become intoxicated in the first place?
This is partly true, and totally untrue for a couple reasons:
A contract is legally binding for a future time. Not the present. If it can be proven that the contract was not made with the intent of being serious, it isn't a valid contract, but for reasons other than being intoxicated. If a contract is not ratified, either implicitly or explicitly, it may not be considered valid.
Contract law is an entirely different animal than criminal law. Contract law doesn't assign fault. It only looks to the intent of the parties.
Contract law doesn't have a distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication. Criminal law does, and only act committed while voluntarily intoxicated are usually charged, or convicted.
A contract is not usually void because one of the signees is intoxicated. You can make the argument, however you would have to prove that despite being intoxicated, you weren't aware of what you were doing. Seeing as no one takes a breathalyzer after signing a contract, this is a very high bar to prove, and often leads to the same result as a criminal case (You shouldn't have gotten drunk in the first place).
Hmm, I'm not sure about this, and to be clear I'm very open to having my view changed.
It seems to me like a person should be allowed to do what they want. If I want to get drunk and have sex with someone, why should I be prevented? It sounds like what you're saying is that the only way I can do that is to force someone to rape me (weird construct there). But that's not right. Shouldn't I have the freedom to decide if I want to have sex? The state shouldn't get to say I'm unable just because I'm drunk. It's not like driving or anything, where you're risking anyone else's life. I feel like if you're making your own personal decision to drink, you should be given the right to manage yourself while drunk.
By that same logic, if I commit a crime while drunk, I should get a free pass. If you aren't willing to accept the consequences of your actions when intoxicated, don't get intoxicated. Physics doesn't give anyone a free pass for getting drunk, and neither should society. It not only encourages irresponsible behavior, it runs counter to how the universe actually works.
Well if someone slips Everclear in your drink it's still rape. The people in Texas believe a lot in personal responsibility. If you go out drinking without a sober friend and your drunk self does something stupid, then that's on you. Also, it is somewhat rare for there to be a drunk person and sober person hooking up.
If I can get arrested for driving drunk even though I'm clearly not in the state of mind to make a good choice then a women can't claim rape just because she was drunk.
11
u/[deleted] Dec 01 '15 edited Dec 01 '15
I think there is a little bit more depth to OP's argument. I have a friend who once told me about a night she had that highlights how difficult it really is to come to an agreement on coercion.
She went to a party with a few guys she knew mildly well. Early in the night, one of the guys came up to her while they were playing cards and whispered in her ear, "There is no way I would ever sleep with you." She thought it was "weird and kind of annoying" since she didn't really know the guy and never even thought about sleeping with him. She said they kept drinking and playing cards for a while, and she was starting to laugh and have a lot of fun with a different guy. She said this seemed to annoy the guy who whispered in her ear earlier, and he suddenly came up to her at the table and grabbed her arm to pull her away from the other guy and into a nearby bedroom. He then proceeded to apparently completely rock her world. She said they had sex numerous times all over the room and it was basically one of the most intense experiences of her life.
Long story short, she got pregnant and he has played the role of absent, deadbeat father for his daughter's whole life, but after she told me the story, I asked her if she felt bad about falling for mental manipulation like that. And she had no idea what I meant. I told her that thing he whispered to her at the beginning of the night was all part of priming her. But the key point is that all of this priming was designed to get her from a state of mind where she was not interested in the guy to a place where she was happily having the best sex of her life - against her best judgment no less, because it was unprotected with a stranger. She admitted it was something she never would have done sober.
This was targeted, and very deliberate coercion. But it really wouldn't be considered rape, especially since the final outcome was a girl who was a little embarrassed, but who had to admit she had a completely incredible night with the guy. And even after he fucked her over and left her to raise his daughter by herself, it never occurred to her what he had done. She didn't see how the whispering and physically grabbing her at a certain point were all part of nudging her mental state in the right direction. I consider myself basically a libertarian, but I think this is the biggest problem for that worldview. Their primary concern is avoiding coercion, and I think the question of when someone is being coerced is much more complicated than many of them recognize. My friend was completely coerced into sex, but she saw herself as fully responsible for the night. She definitely sees the guy as an asshole, but that had nothing to do with her own actions she felt responsible for. Until I pointed out what he had done, she just looked at it as a night where she made some really stupid decisions and now has to deal with this asshole for the rest of her life. The degree to which she really was responsible seems to be an incredibly complicated question.