If both parties are fine with having "unconsented" sex, then how is it not consensual? These are your words man. All I'm wondering is what the hell they mean, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. The are fine with being impossible to be fine with it!!!
It logically still makes sense although it's a stupid argument. If we go by the precedence that anything done while drunk is removed from having personal responsibility attached then a DUI would still hold since you are basically waiving the requirements for your license; being personally responsible to show the minimum level of skill required to operate a vehicle as evident by your license. I guess is kind of alters DUIs into a driving without a license charge which is a bit of a downgrade.
I can sort of see that argument, though I disagree with it, but I expanded upon it in my second post. The law has been extremely clear up until now that you are still responsible for your actions while under the influence.
Yes, but they are still responsible.
And the counter still stands--what if both parties are drunk. Right now, the man gets blamed. But there is no rational reason for that given the precepts of the original problem: Being that consent is impossible while drunk. So if both parties are drunk, neither should be able to consent. Yet we still hold the male responsible, inferring males can still consent and be responsible while drunk; while women can not. We also do not let inebriation affect responsibility in a lot of other scenarios, even scenarios with two people involved in consent.
I also wonder this, can I draft up some boilerplate contracts to have women sign agreeing that our sex is consensual?
I'm going to make an App for that. Woman enters a pin from her phone, transmits it to yours consenting to sex on a certain date. Genius! (Don't you fuckers steal it.)
