this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
326 points (88.4% liked)

Facepalm

3355 readers
5 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like we need some kind of gradient between "rape" and what you're describing. Some kind of protection in place for inebriated people who later, sober, regret the decision, but doesn't immediately result in such a heavy charge.

The truth is that both sides happen. Drunk people sometimes can consent, drunkenness is a broad spectrum. And drunk people also sometimes cannot consent. Right now the more morally correct stance, in my opinion, is to go full tilt into the "drunk people can't consent" camp and charge both parties, but there almost has to be an intermediate we could apply, no?

To be clear, I'm not a lawyer. I don't exactly know how these cases tend to be tried. I'm basing that on a bit of a layman's understanding.

[โ€“] thorbot@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There definitely is, it's called not being a shitty person. If the lady you're with is clearly hammered, or you know they've had more than their normal amount, you don't try anything. Anyone with a speck of decency or morality will know the difference.