GodlessHeathen
Member
When it comes to society, it is full of double standards. However, few of them are as perplexing to me as the classification of having sex while drunk as being "rape". Let's take a look at the Criminal Code of Canada definition of "consent" specifically because it mentions the case of intoxication:
In other words, if someone is incapable of giving consent (such as in the case of being voluntarily intoxicated), no consent is given and any sexual activity that person engages in, willingly or not, is rape. So if a man is sober and a drunk woman comes up to him (and she is drunk of her own accord) and wants to have sex, he is raping her if he engages in it. But even more tellingly, Section 273.2 is even more interesting because it says that if a person is drunk and thinks they had consent because they too were also drunk, it is not a valid defence and that person is STILL guilty of rape.
So in one case, the victim is deemed not culpable because they were voluntarily intoxicated and therefore could not make a sound enough judgement to give consent. Fine. But even if the accused is also drunk and engages in sex, they are still responsible for their actions. So if two drunk people have sex together, are both guilty of raping each other? Because this is how the law reads.
In every other facet of life, voluntary drunkenness is not a defence for anything. If I get drunk and max out my credit card, I'm responsible for the consequences. If I get drunk and sign a bad business deal, I'm responsible for the consequences. If I go to the bar and get hammered and drive home, I'm responsible for the consequences. Being drunk in all of the above situations still deems you legally responsible for the outcome of the decisions you have consented to. The only case where this is not true is in the case of rape where if you are drunk of your own accord and you consent to a particular activity and willingly engage in it, you have still been raped by legal definition. Worse still, different people have different abilities to make decisions while intoxicated and not everyone is intoxicated to the same level. We also don't know the level of intoxication at the time of the alleged incident, so we don't even know how drunk that person was or if they even were drunk by legal definition, nor does this even seem to be a factor.
It goes deeper to a culture where we do not promote personal responsibility. If we are poor, bullied, make bad decisions, are unhealthy, or whatever, it is all someone else's fault; usually a faceless "society" or a "system". Passing the blame onto someone or something else absolves you of all personal responsibility and means that you are not required to do anything to improve your situation (whether you are culpable for it or not). Rape is a terrible crime and rapists are terrible people. They should be locked in jail. But rapists are not people who go to the bar, have a pitcher of beer, and then sleep with someone who has consented after getting themselves drunk. If someone wants to voluntarily put themselves in a state where they supposedly cannot make rational, level-headed decisions, and are in a setting where bad things might happen to them, then anything that happens thereafter is their own fault whether they like it or regret it or not. There is no reason for this double standard and inconsistency in law.
Criminal Code of Canada said:
In other words, if someone is incapable of giving consent (such as in the case of being voluntarily intoxicated), no consent is given and any sexual activity that person engages in, willingly or not, is rape. So if a man is sober and a drunk woman comes up to him (and she is drunk of her own accord) and wants to have sex, he is raping her if he engages in it. But even more tellingly, Section 273.2 is even more interesting because it says that if a person is drunk and thinks they had consent because they too were also drunk, it is not a valid defence and that person is STILL guilty of rape.
So in one case, the victim is deemed not culpable because they were voluntarily intoxicated and therefore could not make a sound enough judgement to give consent. Fine. But even if the accused is also drunk and engages in sex, they are still responsible for their actions. So if two drunk people have sex together, are both guilty of raping each other? Because this is how the law reads.
In every other facet of life, voluntary drunkenness is not a defence for anything. If I get drunk and max out my credit card, I'm responsible for the consequences. If I get drunk and sign a bad business deal, I'm responsible for the consequences. If I go to the bar and get hammered and drive home, I'm responsible for the consequences. Being drunk in all of the above situations still deems you legally responsible for the outcome of the decisions you have consented to. The only case where this is not true is in the case of rape where if you are drunk of your own accord and you consent to a particular activity and willingly engage in it, you have still been raped by legal definition. Worse still, different people have different abilities to make decisions while intoxicated and not everyone is intoxicated to the same level. We also don't know the level of intoxication at the time of the alleged incident, so we don't even know how drunk that person was or if they even were drunk by legal definition, nor does this even seem to be a factor.
It goes deeper to a culture where we do not promote personal responsibility. If we are poor, bullied, make bad decisions, are unhealthy, or whatever, it is all someone else's fault; usually a faceless "society" or a "system". Passing the blame onto someone or something else absolves you of all personal responsibility and means that you are not required to do anything to improve your situation (whether you are culpable for it or not). Rape is a terrible crime and rapists are terrible people. They should be locked in jail. But rapists are not people who go to the bar, have a pitcher of beer, and then sleep with someone who has consented after getting themselves drunk. If someone wants to voluntarily put themselves in a state where they supposedly cannot make rational, level-headed decisions, and are in a setting where bad things might happen to them, then anything that happens thereafter is their own fault whether they like it or regret it or not. There is no reason for this double standard and inconsistency in law.
. Exactly. You choose to get intoxicated. You consent to sex while intoxicated. Therefore, you're responsible for it. Someone drugging you against your will is a different matter. But if you voluntarily impair yourself to the point where you are unable to make rational decisions, it's your own fault.
