Consent, Alcohol, and Sexual Activity - the Boundary between Rape and Consensual Sex - Essay Example

June 16, Consent, Alcohol, and Sexual Activity: The Boundary between Rape and Consensual Sex Drinking alcohol can impact aperson’s perceptions and conduct of sexuality-related behaviors (George et al.). An intoxicated person can have lower sexual inhibitions which can lead to poor risk assessment and unsafe sex (George et al.), and, at times, an intoxicated woman can be a victim of rape or nonaggravated sexual assault. The consumption of alcohol affects the morality of sex because alcohol intoxication has adverse physiological, emotional, and cognitive effects that can impair an intoxicated person’s ability to make coherent sexuality-activity decisions. Voluntary intoxication of women cannot justify rape for, if women could not even stand or speak because of alcohol intoxication, they are likely unable to make coherent sexual consent. If both parties are intoxicated, the moral obligation lies on men, who should not take advantage of women’s intoxicated vulnerability. Finally, men should be held morally and legally responsible for the consumption of alcohol of their sexual partners if they consciously made the latter drunk because they know that the latter will not be able to oppose their sexual advances, or if they let them get drunk, knowing that they can also have sex with them when they are already intoxicated enough to be unconscious of or disinhibited in their sexual actions. However, men should only be held morally, not legally, responsible for their sexual actions if both of them consented to drinking and had sex, and women felt guilty for their sexual activity, but fully knew that, when she was voluntarily intoxicated, she was laxer with her sexual activities. Before arguing for the first point, Nicholas Dixon’s concepts of actus reus (“guilty act”) mens rea (“guilty mind”) can help examine and describe consent and rape issues. He argues that a man must have both, in order for a sexual activity to be considered as rape: “[a] man is guilty of rape only if he not only commits the actus reus of rape- sex without his partners consent- but does so with the requisite guilty mind, that is, intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently (Dixon 342). Rape happens when men feel mens rea and actus reus because they know they will be doing something wrong, yet they did it anyway. The concept of rape can be additionally understood through Lois Pineau’s model of “communicative sexuality” which argues that men have a moral duty to ensure that their sexual partners truly consented to their sexual activity (Dixon 346). First, women must clearly verbally consent to sex. Second, even if her consent is “token” because she is intoxicated, she must be coherent enough to give a valid consent to sexual activity. If she is impaired enough to not give valid consent, a man who has sex with her commits a sexual assault. Pineau asserts that “[the] man who proceeds with impaired sex meets both the actus reus and mens rea requirements of nonaggravated sexual assault” (Dixon 347). It men are unsure because their sexual partners are too drunk or seems incoherent, they should not engage in sexual activities (Dixon 346). Consent is not saying “yes” to sex because a man may think he heard the woman say “yes” when he asked her if she wants to have sex with him. The man must consider if the woman is not drunk enough to not know what she is saying. He must do this to avoid being “guilty of negligence” for misinterpreting the sexual messages of the woman can lead to accusations of rape (Dixon 347). Going to the first point, men should not be legally and morally held responsible for the consumption of alcohol of their sexual partners, in the sense that women must be free to drink alcohol when they want to, and, in connection, women must be held partially responsible for giving sexual consent while intoxicated, as long as their thinking and actions are not greatly impaired. Women have agency or free will. Dixon is right that women must be held responsible, to some extent, for their drinking habits and their outcomes. He says that women should “at least partially responsible for the consequences of their voluntary decision to drink large amounts of alcohol, made in full knowledge that it may result in choices that they will later regret” (345). Women can and must drink as free human beings and their male co-drinkers are not responsible for them getting drunk, if they are merely there to accompany them, or simply chanced upon them getting drunk. Women are also partially responsible for their sexuality, even when drunk. The important condition, however, is that they must still be aware of their actions and decisions while drunk. An example is an intoxicated woman who has sex with a stranger because she is attracted to him. She is a bit drunk, but she gives a valid consent to the sexual activity because she wants to have sex with him. In this case, the man did not have a moral or legal obligation to stop the woman from drinking or having sex with him, as long as he thinks that they are doing consensual sex, where the woman is lucid enough to make sexual decisions. Despite women having the right to drink alcohol and the right to have sex with men while intoxicated, men should be morally and legally held responsible if they want other women to get drunk or let them get drunk, so that they could have sex with them, because this can be categorized as rape, especially when intoxicated sexual partners are unconscious or incoherent during the sexual activity. Some men intentionally get women drunk because they know that they may have a chance to have sex with the latter when they passed out or are no longer coherent to make the kind of decisions they would have when they were sober. This intention refers to “intentionally, knowingly” getting women drunk for immoral purposes that Dixon talks about (342). These men can be accused of rape because they know that these women would not have sex with them if they were sober and could give sexual consent. At the same time, men should be morally and legally held responsible if they let other women to get drunk, so that they could have sex with them. They may not be intentionally persuading women to drink until they are incoherent, but they let the latter drink continuously because they have the immoral intention to have sex with them when they already reached a state of incoherence. This act can be seen as being negligent or reckless because these men are letting women get drunk to the point that they cannot be lucid enough to make rational decisions and to give valid sexual consent. To further illustrate this point, men who have sexual activity with an unconscious, intoxicated women, or women who are intoxicated enough to have slurred speech and can barely stand, are most likely raping them. Dixon is arguing that actus reus is enough reason to say that rape has occurred, in cases where a man, who did not actually get another woman drunk, had full knowledge that intoxication lowered her inhibition to his sexual advances. He may not show mens rea because he took advantage of a situation and could justify it as consensual sex, but his intention to abuse the situation can result to a woman’s mens rea, which can make her feel that she has been raped, or that actus reus has occurred in the form of rape. In other words, impaired sex is rape if the man committed both actus reus and mens rea. Impaired sex refers to a condition where an intoxicated woman who may not be coherent enough to render valid consensual sex decisions has sex with another man (who may or may not be intoxicated too). A real-life example is when four fraternity members had sex with an 18-year-old student who passed out because of alcohol intoxication. She did not consent to sex with four men because she lacked sufficient consciousness and coherence to do so (Dixon 342). It did not even matter if the woman said yes or showed signs of consent before and during the sexual activity. She was simply too intoxicated to have made that decision with a rational mind. A person should be prosecuted for rape because of the consumption of alcohol of their partner if the sexual activity is a product of both actus reus and mens rea. These men had guilty minds for having sex with an unconscious woman and guilty acts for having sex without the valid consent of the victim. The existence of alcohol intoxication and its impact on disinhibition figure in determining the moral and legal permissibility of sexual activities between adults. If both parties have consumed alcohol and have become intoxicated, then the moral responsibility falls on the one who conducts the sexual activity, which refers usually to men. In cases where both are drunk and the woman is already very drunk that her speech is slurred or that she can barely move, the man has the moral responsibility to not take advantage of the situation. Even when the woman undresses him and kisses him, as well as engages in sexual activity, like touching him sensually, he should, as long as he is still aware of his actions, oppose the sexual advances, if it is clear that the woman is only doing it because of alcohol intoxication. In other words, if the man thinks that the intoxicated woman is doing something she would not normally do when she is not drunk, then he should not perceive that the woman truly wants to have sex with him. At the same time, even when the woman is drunk and even if they get drunk together, he should not have sex with her if they did not talk about having sex before getting drunk and she already passed out or is already too weak to resist sexual advances. The moral obligation is on the man to not turn a casual drinking event to a sexual activity that the woman did not plan beforehand. However, men should not be held morally and legally responsible for their sexual actions if both of them consented to drinking and had sex, and women felt guilty for their sexual activity, but fully knew that, when she was voluntarily intoxicated, she was more relaxed with her sexual activities. Alan Wertheimer analyzes the complex role of being “voluntarily intoxicated” in consenting to sex. He analyzes the validity of consent that affects the morality of sex. He asserts that if women felt guilty after having sexual relations while drunk, then their “intoxicated consent is invalid” (Wertheimer 396). However, if they felt guilty after having sex while drunk, but they knew that they get more sexually disinhibited when they are drunk, then the consent can be considered as valid. This becomes particularly truer if the women are aware that the men they will be drinking with might see their drinking activity as a precursor to sex, which is what the male subjects in George et al.’s study showed. Male subjects in their study saw alcohol-drinking women as more open to sex than non-drinking ones, even if some women did not find drinking as correlated to their sexual activity. Thus, women should be aware of their responsibility when drinking with men or when men are around because they are vulnerable to their sexual disinhibition when intoxicated. Consumption of alcohol greatly affects the morality and legality of sex. A man can use alcohol to rape someone or take it as an incentive to rape someone. Certainly, a woman who is drunk is not an excuse for a man to rape the former. A categorical “no” in words or actions is a “no.” Getting women intoxicated to have sex with them can also be considered as rape, although consensual intoxication may result to consensual sex, if these women gave valid or lucid sexual consent. Furthermore, rape happens even when women say “yes” or appear like saying “yes” to sex, if they appear incoherent already (i.e. slurred speech and barely stand) or are unconscious from deep intoxication. Men have the moral and legal obligation to not have sex with intoxicated women during these instances to avoid rape charges and to not have the moral dilemma of having sex with women who did not give valid sexual consent. Works Cited Dixon, Nicholas. “Alcohol and Rape.” Public Affairs Quarterly 15.4 (2001): 341-354. Print. George, William H., Stoner, Susan A., Davis, Kelly Cue, Lindgren, Kristen P., Norris, Jeanette, and Peter A. Lopez. “Postdrinking Sexual Perceptions and Behaviors toward Another Person: Alcohol Expectancy Set and Gender Differences.” The Journal of Sex Research 43.3 (2006): 282-291. Print. Wertheimer, Alan. “Intoxicated Consent to Sexual Relations.” Law and Philosophy 20.4 (2001): 373-401. Print. Read More