This started as a derailed thread in another post, my feeling is that there are some definite points that were going back and forth that should be clarified.
Geno had the last post in the thread, yet laid down blanket statements that I feel should be responded to.
To quote one of his posts: "Someone that is intoxicated cannot give consent. Period."
I then pointed out that there are thousands of possible acts that a person can be found legally responsible for performing while intoxicated, among them DUI, and this was the only point responded to, calling my reasoning false analogy. The point I was trying to make is that even though intoxicated, an act can be performed with another person in which both parties give willful consent and you can be held legally responsible.
Another quote was: "What is being argued in this thread on the opposition side is if a man gets "consent" out of an incoherent, intoxicated women, he has absolutely committed no crime by having sex with her any way he pleases while sober. It would be a rather strenuous exercise if they're both drunk in a legal case."
Here is not the point I am arguing, but it is what Geno sees in my words. The argument I am trying to make is not one of a person who is intoxicated to the point of being incoherent--at that point, consent cannot be construed because a response regarding whether or not a party is giving consent to intercourse cannot be determined. The same goes for the situation where one party is so drunk they are passed out--consent cannot be given while unconscious. One other huge thing that bothers me with most of these threads is that the arguments always center around a man who takes advantage of a woman.
Now, pointing back to the website California “Date Rape” Laws, Explained by Criminal Defense Lawyers, this is a situation described--one where one party is unconscious and the other takes advantage of this state to have intercourse. Here, I agree that this is rape as the unconscious party cannot give consent.
Last, Geno posted many links to articles regarding rape cases either ongoing or convictions rendered. I found it interesting that most of these cases center around instances where one party was unconscious and others took advantage of the unconscious state to have intercourse. Arguments for all of these cases center around the victim being unconscious or incoherent.
Here is what my argument comes down to: If someone enters into intoxication of their own volition, followed by committing the act of sexual intercourse with another party (again of their own volition), then this is not automatically rape. There are many definitions that need to be considered here, the major one being how one defines 'intoxication'. All of the examples brought forth to argue rape are intoxication to the point of being incoherent or unconsciousness. Intoxication also includes much lower BAC levels to the point of simply having impaired judgment. Simply crying, "I had a couple drinks, I wasn't thinking right!" does not automatically constitute rape against the other party.
Where the argument falls apart is claiming black and white states, which is completely the point I am trying to make (and thank you CutePrincess for realizing that). Stating "Someone that is intoxicated cannot give consent," implies black and white constraints while there is plenty of gray to look at.
Did maybe you mean to say, "Someone that is intoxicated to the point of being incoherent or unconscious cannot give consent"?