| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we can all agree that using compulsions such as suggestion, unnatural lust, dominate person, or this item (sweet Jesus, devs) is in flat-out "Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200" territory.
By most standards, charm person, the elixir of love, and reckless infatuation also fall into that category, although there are some nuances here.
For example, convincing a charmed creature to do something it wouldn't ordinarily do requires a Charisma check. I would say that, despite what the elixir of love would imply, having immediate relations with someone they have never even seen before (especially if they are in a committed relationship already) would require a Charisma check, meaning that a wizard who dumped Charisma still has a significant hurdle to cross regardless of level.
However, I would maintain that a charmed creature's decision-making ability is just as impaired as an inebriated individual, and therefore is incapable of giving informed consent. Charisma check or no, using charms in this way is abusive.
Likewise, despite its name, nowhere does reckless infatuation actually state that it has any game effect on the target other than forcing them to remain within 30 feet at all times or else be staggered. The duration (1 day/level) is a little extreme, but all it amounts to is creating your very own creepy stalker. While the spell does state that the target develops an infatuation and desire for the creature the caster selects, it doesn't say how or even whether they will act on it, whether prompted by the desired creature or not. Also, the spell is not a charm, so there is no RAW Charisma check rule to convince them to perform an action.
Of course, I think we all agree on what the intent of the spell is—
give the party fighter a gay kobold lover
—even if it's not spelled out. An in that case, the excessive duration makes the spell much more disturbing. If played out as it seems to be intended, that too will deny you your ten Andrew Jacksons.
Buuuuuuut....
What about spells like seducer's eyes and tap inner beauty?
What about items like the circlet of persuasion?
What about using polymorph or glamer effects on yourself (and where your goal is not to impersonate another individual)?
What about using detect thoughts or witness?
What about using timely inspiration, embrace destiny, gallant inspiration, or brilliant inspiration on a Charisma check or Charisma-based skill check, or making a Charisma-based skill check using someone else's ranks via borrow skill or bestow insight?
What about using spells like eagle's splendor and heroism, or spells or items to boost Charisma or ability/skill checks keyed to it?
Which of these, if any, are just fine, which are dishonest, which are tasteless, which are creepy, which are sleazy, which are immoral, and which would be illegal in most nonevil kingdoms? (Note that many of those overlap).
|
I think Reckless Infatuation seems like a person who just got a new smartphone, not necessarily romantic love.
But yeah, it can get pretty bad pretty quick with the spells your mentioned. All those buff spells seem like the most reasonable, but considering that we already have artificial products in the real world, that use chemicals to elicit a more positive response from a potential partner.
There can be a very thin line here, and I would not want to be in the position to state where
that line is.
When it comes to the game, a bard with charisma enhancing magic seems reasonable, the same could be true for heroism (it does have quite the duration), glibness could cross the line.
All of these items and spells are my go-to armaments for Gyronna cults. Evil is most scary when it mimics real life.
He then casts "Bigby's Fast-acting Rohypnol".
|
I basically agree entirely with Thelemic_Noun's list of 'rapey' spells, for the record.
Buuuuuuut....Which of these, if any, are just fine, which are dishonest, which are tasteless, which are creepy, which are sleazy, which are immoral, and which would be illegal in most nonevil kingdoms? (Note that many of those overlap).
Okay, let's look through these and see, shall we?
What about spells like seducer's eyes and tap inner beauty?
Things that do nothing but give you a bonus on a Diplomacy check are pretty categorically morally okay, and not tasteless, sleazy, or creepy at all. That's no different from dressing nicely or wearing expensive perfume (Masterwork Tools for Diplomacy), or using something like a Slayer's Studied Target. The spell targets you, making you better at this, not the person you're trying to seduce damaging their free will.
What about items like the circlet of persuasion?
See my discussion on Seducer's Eyes and Tap Inner Beauty above.
What about using polymorph or glamer effects on yourself (and where your goal is not to impersonate another individual)?
Creepy, possibly tasteless and/or sleazy. Not immoral anywhere or illegal most places. Again, it effects you, not them, which is usually not morally problematic.
What about using detect thoughts or witness?
Immoral, creepy, and probably illegal. It is not, however, 'rapey' per se...more like a serious invasion of privacy.
What about using timely inspiration, embrace destiny, gallant inspiration, or brilliant inspiration on a Charisma check or Charisma-based skill check, or making a Charisma-based skill check using someone else's ranks via borrow skill or bestow insight?
Again, see my discussion on Seducer's Eyes and Tap Inner Beauty above.
What about using spells like eagle's splendor and heroism, or spells or items to boost Charisma or ability/skill checks keyed to it?
And once again, see my discussion on Seducer's Eyes and Tap Inner Beauty above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ummm...I get the feeling that you have one idea of what a number of those spells are good for and are implying that there are no other methods of utilizing those spells.
Suggestion, Dominate Person, Charm Person, etc. all have many other uses which are probably far more likely to see table use than getting the local tavern wench into the sack. Unnatural Lust is its normal form lasts all of one round and the Headband of Seduction costs 40,000 to push that up to 10 minutes when there are likely far more useful items to purchase.
If you don't like those spells because of their potential use to be creepy toward non-existent people, then don't use them at your table. But please don't think that is the only reason to ever have those spells prepared.
|
|
Honestly when I think about it these spells are no different than diplomacy or bluffing your way into bed. A failed will save is no worse than a failed sense motive.
No, that's not how that works. Bluff can't actually get you into someone's bed on it's own, and you don't use Sense Motive to oppose Diplomacy. Neither is how the rules work at all.
And Will Saves are you actively resisting a magic that forces you to behave a certain way. Note the term 'force'. You aren't convinced of anything, you aren't given reason to like the person, your will and judgement are forcibly impaired for a finite period of time. The analogy of drugs is pretty much perfect. Now, Charm spells are a pretty benign drug, say the equivalent of getting someone drunk...but if you get someone seriously drunk and then have sex with them, that's rape.
The only exception for me would be dominate because they know they're being forced you've just controlled their body.
Okay, at least we agree on something.
Charm is more than mind control. It makes them like you as a diplomacy check. Some of the spells might fall into that category but charm definitely doesn't seem worse to me than being a smooth talker.
Let's quote Charm Person shall we?
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
Okay, so far you look like you might even have a leg to stand on, that's not so bad, right? But wait! The description goes on.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
Oooh...those bolded parts imply some serious impairment of their judgement going on there, don't they now? It's not 'mind control' in the strictest sense, but it definitely impairs their ability to make their own decisions in a way very similar to mind-effecting drugs. Which makes using it to get someone into bed pretty much rape.
It's effectively a bonus to diplomacy. Bonuses to diplomacy are nothing more than speaking fluently, dressing nicely, being courteous, and being friendly.
This is true of bonuses to Diplomacy. It is not true of Charm spells. At all. For reasons gone into above.
I'm of the opinion that charm spells and similar things don't become de facto cheap domination effects just because a charisma check is made. It's a very badly worded vague portion of the spell and that part of it should never have been added into it if for no other reason than the confusion and arguments it can create.
I would still consider somebody that's diametrically opposed to something or has other extreme problems with an action or thought not going along with them even with a charisma check under a charm effect. I see it more as convincing somebody to do something they aren't opposed to on a philosophical or moral level, but also wouldn't feel up to doing even for a good friend.
Right...but as noted it impairs their judgement and forces them to behave in a way they would not otherwise (ie: as if you are their friend, and to actively believe the best of you no matter how you behave). That's, once again, at least as much impaired judgement as getting someone drunk...and is thus rape if you use it to convince them to have sex with you, every bit as much as intentionally getting someone very drunk while you stay sober to take advantage of them.
Ummm...I get the feeling that you have one idea of what a number of those spells are good for and are implying that there are no other methods of utilizing those spells.
Suggestion, Dominate Person, Charm Person, etc. all have many other uses which are probably far more likely to see table use than getting the local tavern wench into the sack. Unnatural Lust is its normal form lasts all of one round and the Headband of Seduction costs 40,000 to push that up to 10 minutes when there are likely far more useful items to purchase.
If you don't like those spells because of their potential use to be creepy toward non-existent people, then don't use them at your table. But please don't think that is the only reason to ever have those spells prepared.
Uh...nobody is suggesting this. We're just discussing which spells are, well, 'rape-y' if they are used to convince someone to have sex.
Succeed- If you succeed, the character’s attitude toward you is improved by one step. For every 5 by which your check result exceeds the DC, the character’s attitude toward you increases by one additional step. A creature’s attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations.
...
You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less. Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.
Note how charm person doesn't match that language.
Charm person allows you to do things that you simply do not get to do with diplomacy from the get go.
|
|
My point is simple.
A sufficiently high diplomacy score is indistinguishable from charm person.
If I have +50 diplomacy I functionally have charm person attached to my every word. I can convince people to kill their family, get into bed with me, or make me the sole inheritor of the fortune they're about to leave behind.
Nope! Let's quote Diplomacy's 'asking favors' section:
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature's current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
Emphasis mine. People can't be convinced to do things against their own values with Diplomacy. Period. They retain free will.
Charm functions as though you had an obnoxiously high diplomacy score.
Nope, see the Charm Person rules I quoted above. With Charm Person, they not only count as Friendly, they also perceive everything you do in the most favorable possible light, and can be convinced to do things that violate their own moral code, just not suicidal one. You violate their free will and make them do things they'd never do without magic being involved.
My point is mechanics wise diplomacy is functionally similar to controlling the persons will.
Nope! Again, they can always refuse requests they feel are wrong.
I agree domination, probably even suggestion, geas, and similar which if they fail a will save they are COMPELLED to obey are different but charm isn't that much different than diplomacy.
But it is. Please, actually look at the rules for both. They are quite different in what they let you talk someone into.
|
|
There is nothing stating you can't use diplomacy more than once.
Uh...
You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature's attitude more than once in a 24-hour period. If a request is refused, the result does not change with additional checks, although other requests might be made. You can retry Diplomacy checks made to gather information.
So yes, there is.
So other than GM fiat what is to stop me from convincing someone to go from torag to abadar to azmodeous? Change their values by making high enough consistent diplomacy checks. Diplomacy done 60 times in an hour could slowly convince someone of just about anything unless the GM fiat rule comes in.
Diplomacy can only do two things by the rules:
1. Make people like you.
2. Get people to do things that don't violate their values or nature.
There are no rules for convincing people to change their beliefs. At all.
Using evil methods to accomplish non-evil ends is still evil.Ummm...I get the feeling that you have one idea of what a number of those spells are good for and are implying that there are no other methods of utilizing those spells.
Suggestion, Dominate Person, Charm Person, etc. all have many other uses which are probably far more likely to see table use than getting the local tavern wench into the sack. Unnatural Lust is its normal form lasts all of one round and the Headband of Seduction costs 40,000 to push that up to 10 minutes when there are likely far more useful items to purchase.
If you don't like those spells because of their potential use to be creepy toward non-existent people, then don't use them at your table. But please don't think that is the only reason to ever have those spells prepared.
Is mind control more Evil than stabbing someone repeatedly in the face? Probably not usually (though it can be if you mind control them to do certain things). That being the case, it seems a reasonable thing to use in combat against people trying to kill you.
umm. if memory serves right, isn't feats/traits/class abilities that circumvent the whole "you can only raise a persons disposition by two with diplomacy" thing?
Make a request (p)
Request is honored (q)
Some Requests are not honored (¬q)
Which means we can say:
p->(q or ¬q)
However we cannot assume
p->q
or
p->¬q
The case that if you make a request with diplomacy it must be honored is p->q and is an invalid argument.
umm. if memory serves right, isn't feats/traits/class abilities that circumvent the whole "you can only raise a persons disposition by two with diplomacy" thing?
There are several, Diabolical Negotiator from the ISG is a good example. However, as far as I know you can't go above "helpful" on the diplomacy chart. 3.5 had an additional category called "fanatic" which would radically change the personality of the target for the diplomacy check, but I'm not aware of anything like that in Pathfinder.
The important thing to keep in mind is that Charm and (especially) Domination spells override the target's will and implicitly makes them do things they don't want to do if they fail a will save. Barring external factors (such as prestige classes that alter how diplomacy functions) Diplomacy does not have that ability - no matter how persuasive the person you're talking to is, you always have the option to "just say no" if the request he makes is one that's incompatible with your values or personal views.
Diplomacy tries to flex your will, charm/domination spells tries to break it.
Edit: I quickly refreshed my memory on the epic diplomacy function on D20srd and it explicitly notes that "fanatic" is a mind-affecting enchantment effect for purposes of immunity, save bonuses and sense motive detection. IE 3.5 treated a fanatic condition as a charm effect.
umm. if memory serves right, isn't feats/traits/class abilities that circumvent the whole "you can only raise a persons disposition by two with diplomacy" thing?There are several, Diabolical Negotiator from the ISG is a good example. However, as far as I know you can't go above "helpful" on the diplomacy chart. 3.5 had an additional category called "fanatic" with skill DCs ranging from 50 to 150, but I'm not aware of anything like that in Pathfinder.
The important thing to keep in mind is that Charm and (especially) Domination spells override the target's will and implicitly makes them do things they don't want to do if they fail a will save.
Barring external factors (such as prestige classes that alter how diplomacy functions) Diplomacy does not have that ability - no matter how persuasive the person you're talking to is, you always have the option to "just say no" if the request he makes is one that's incompatible with your values or personal views.
Diplomacy tries to flex your will, charm/domination spells tries to break it.
Thats what I thought, I wasn't sure if I was mixing up my 3.5 with PF xD.
As for the diplomacy thing, you would be suprised at what people can convince you to do... Just going to throw out things like Cult Leaders... and not all of them have to be super satanic cults, just look at Scientology or how Jehovah's Witnessess are...
I'm of the opinion that charm spells and similar things don't become de facto cheap domination effects just because a charisma check is made. It's a very badly worded vague portion of the spell and that part of it should never have been added into it if for no other reason than the confusion and arguments it can create.
In that it is the same as boozing someone up. In the world in which I operate if you booze someone up then sleep with them it is rape, if you use charm person to sleep with them then it is rape.
At least with the booze they could have not drank.
|
|
glibness could cross the line.
One of the most disturbing things to happen in our AP REDACTED game came when an ally used glibness for the first time where before she had always used the strength of her arguments and personality to sway people's hearts.
It verged into downright heartbreaking when she used its effects to convince us that she really believed what she had done was the only good way left to her.
I may view letting yourself get sexually violated as "obviously harmful/self-destructive orders" which means all these spells and even the skills wouldn't let you force sex with someone.
I also wouldn't allow the grapple rules to be used that way either.
In my opinion Pathfinder doesn't have explicit mechanics for rape and for good reason. Rape isn't fun and the game rules shouldn't support it. If a darker narrative requires it, then the GM should do it through narrative elements. The game/fun side of pathfinder should have nothing to do with rape.
umm. if memory serves right, isn't feats/traits/class abilities that circumvent the whole "you can only raise a persons disposition by two with diplomacy" thing?There are several, Diabolical Negotiator from the ISG is a good example. However, as far as I know you can't go above "helpful" on the diplomacy chart. 3.5 had an additional category called "fanatic" with skill DCs ranging from 50 to 150, but I'm not aware of anything like that in Pathfinder.
The important thing to keep in mind is that Charm and (especially) Domination spells override the target's will and implicitly makes them do things they don't want to do if they fail a will save.
Barring external factors (such as prestige classes that alter how diplomacy functions) Diplomacy does not have that ability - no matter how persuasive the person you're talking to is, you always have the option to "just say no" if the request he makes is one that's incompatible with your values or personal views.
Diplomacy tries to flex your will, charm/domination spells tries to break it.
Thats what I thought, I wasn't sure if I was mixing up my 3.5 with PF xD.
As for the diplomacy thing, you would be suprised at what people can convince you to do... Just going to throw out things like Cult Leaders... and not all of them have to be super satanic cults, just look at Scientology or how Jehovah's Witnessess are...
Surprised at how far you can be pushed doesn't mean you can be pushed in all cases or to the same point, specifically with a single method (i.e. diplomacy).
As per the skill some requests simply are not possible, therefore (again) we can conclude that not all requests are possible.
I'm of the opinion that charm spells and similar things don't become de facto cheap domination effects just because a charisma check is made. It's a very badly worded vague portion of the spell and that part of it should never have been added into it if for no other reason than the confusion and arguments it can create.
In that it is the same as boozing someone up. In the world in which I operate if you booze someone up then sleep with them it is rape, if you use charm person to sleep with them then it is rape.
At least with the booze they could have not drank.
Making the argument that boozing someone up and sleeping with them the same as rape either false, or changing the definition of rape to lose the meaning that invests it with the emotional context its connotations imply.
Voluntarily impairing your judgement does not render your judgements null and void.
|
|
I may view letting yourself get sexually violated as "obviously harmful/self-destructive orders" which means all these spells and even the skills wouldn't let you force sex with someone.
Eh...you think they're your friend. Unless you're married or something, I'm not sure that qualifies as self-destructive from your perspective. It is, but so's fighting their enemies, and Charm Person can make you do that. It's unpleasant, but speaking logically...
I also wouldn't allow the grapple rules to be used that way either.
Ugly as it is...logically, this too should work.
In my opinion Pathfinder doesn't have explicit mechanics for rape and for good reason. Rape isn't fun and the game rules shouldn't support it. If a darker narrative requires it, then the GM should do it through narrative elements. The game/fun side of pathfinder should have nothing to do with rape.
Depends on the style of game, and level of simulationist/narrativist play your group is comfortable with. If they require the rules to be the 'laws of physics' well...
Obviously, you should never include anything in a game everyone isn't comfortable with including.
|
|
As for the diplomacy thing, you would be suprised at what people can convince you to do... Just going to throw out things like Cult Leaders... and not all of them have to be super satanic cults, just look at Scientology or how Jehovah's Witnessess are...Surprised at how far you can be pushed doesn't mean you can be pushed in all cases or to the same point, specifically with a single method (i.e. diplomacy).
As per the skill some requests simply are not possible, therefore (again) we can conclude that not all requests are possible.
It also bears noting that cults target the vulnerable and easily-swayed for a reason.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making the argument that boozing someone up and sleeping with them the same as rape either false, or changing the definition of rape to lose the meaning that invests it with the emotional context its connotations imply.
Voluntarily impairing your judgement does not render your judgements null and void.
Actively getting someone really drunk while you remain sober, for the specific purpose of sleeping with them...is rape by most reasonable definitions.
As the situation becomes less clear-cut that line blurs a bit...eventually to the point where two equally drunk people having consensual sex is not rape by basically all reasonable definitions...but that's not the situation being discussed here (since there's no reciprocal Charms going on).
Besides, if we're talking equivalents, Charm Person is spiking their drink without their knowledge and consent, anyway. And that's clearly not okay.
I may view letting yourself get sexually violated as "obviously harmful/self-destructive orders" which means all these spells and even the skills wouldn't let you force sex with someone.Eh...you think they're your friend. Unless you're married or something, I'm not sure that qualifies as self-destructive from your perspective. It is, but so's fighting their enemies, and Charm Person can make you do that. It's unpleasant, but speaking logically...
I also wouldn't allow the grapple rules to be used that way either.Ugly as it is...logically, this too should work.
Being friends is not the same thing as lust. There doesn't exist a scale of a sexual attraction to alter with spells or diplomacy.
Grapple doesn't have any listed action to do that sort of thing. Any mechanics for it have to be made up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being friends is not the same thing as lust. There doesn't exist a scale of a sexual attraction to alter with spells or diplomacy.
Grapple doesn't have any listed action to do that sort of thing. Any mechanics for it have to be made up.
Y'know...I'm not gonna have this argument.
Rules or no rules, rape and similar subjects should only be brought up in a mature group where it's clear everyone is okay with that subject mater. I think that's the important bit, and one I think we all agree on.
Want to really get into the moral grey area?
Try this thought experiment with Sow Thought.
Which is worse? To use magical coercion to convince someone to sleep with you, or to use magic to make someone think that you are the most attractive thing they have ever seen?
|
|
Want to really get into the moral grey area?
Try this thought experiment with Sow Thought.
Which is worse? To use magical coercion to convince someone to sleep with you, or to use magical manipulation to make someone think that you are the most attractive thing they have ever seen?
That's not grey, that's different shades of black. Both are Evil enough* that distinguishing between them is basically academic.
*Actually, I could see the Sow Thought one being okay with full informed consent...but that's clearly not what's being talked about.
Well said.
Making the argument that boozing someone up and sleeping with them the same as rape either false, or changing the definition of rape to lose the meaning that invests it with the emotional context its connotations imply.Voluntarily impairing your judgement does not render your judgements null and void.
Y'know, I'm just gonna borrow from mechaPoet on this one.
Nope.
Making the argument that boozing someone up and sleeping with them the same as rape either false, or changing the definition of rape to lose the meaning that invests it with the emotional context its connotations imply.
Voluntarily impairing your judgement does not render your judgements null and void.
This thread's debating a very touchy subject as it is, posts like these are really not helpful. Especially since the mods are on vacation at the moment, I want to politely ask people not to get into that debate.
Let's try to stay on topic.
Making the argument that boozing someone up and sleeping with them the same as rape either false, or changing the definition of rape to lose the meaning that invests it with the emotional context its connotations imply.Voluntarily impairing your judgement does not render your judgements null and void.
Voluntarily impairing your judgement does not render your judgements null and void agreed -- however taking advantage of someone with impaired judgement is taking advantage of someone with impaired judgement and that is rape.
Purposefully impairing someone's judgement and then taking advantage of that impairment is a violation of that person and is a rape.
Using drugs or magic either way doesn't change that.
Also prior consent does not imply current consent -- agreeing to something in past does not obligate you to provide consent and does not relieve your partner from having to obtain consent again for a new instance.
Impaired judgement renders you incapable of consent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alcohol one is philosophical conundrum. On one hand the person feeding alcohol is doing it for the sole purpose of getting sex, and that strikes me as rather predatory. On the other hand, I think it sets a very bad legal precedent that one sex can get drunk, consent to sex, regret it the next day and ruin some dudes life. Because it would be very difficult to prove whether or not he was preying on the woman in question or just partying when one thing led to another.
Legally speaking, alcohol is not considered a significant mood altering drug to make you not liable for the actions you take, even when poisoned with it. If you can prove poisoning by the alleged rapist, then they are at least guilty of that, which implies predatory motives. But if you can't prove that poisoning, then the act of sex shouldn't be enough to prove that rape happened in that situation from a legal standpoint of not wanting to wrongly convict the innocent.
EDIT: I also think that saying getting buzzed makes women incapable of making decisions is rather degrading to women and edges into trivializing rape.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot give consent while drunk.
Consent must be obtained or the act is forced.
Drunk has a legal definition. Consent has a legal definition, and you cannot consent while drunk. If you do not have consent then the act is not willing.
This is a basic point everyone needs to get into their heads.
Does this mean that you didn't do something that put you in the situation? No. But that doesn't excuse the other persons behavior either.
If I leave my house open and you take something from it you have still robbed me. I made it easy but you are still a robber.
Consequently if I get drunk I cannot give consent. If I do not give consent and you do it anyways you are a rapist.
My idiocy does not give you the right to my possessions.
You cannot give consent while drunk.
Consent must be obtained or the act is forced is automatically considered forced.
Drunk has a legal definition. Consent has a legal definition, and you cannot consent while drunk. If you do not have consent then the act is not willing.
This is a basic point everyone needs to get into their heads.
So if both parties are drunk, then both parties raped each other?
|
|
So if both parties are drunk, then both parties raped each other?You cannot give consent while drunk.
Consent must be obtained or the act is forced is automatically considered forced.
Drunk has a legal definition. Consent has a legal definition, and you cannot consent while drunk. If you do not have consent then the act is not willing.
This is a basic point everyone needs to get into their heads.
Under RAW, yes. That's why we have juries to determine RAI in corner cases like that.
You cannot give consent while drunk.
Consent must be obtained or the act is forced.
Drunk has a legal definition. Consent has a legal definition, and you cannot consent while drunk. If you do not have consent then the act is not willing.
Unfortunately, even the link you provide is ambiguous on the issue. First it says you can't legally consent when intoxicated then it qualifies it with the term "too drunk". That's a problem and it will continue to be a problem for quite a while.
There are a lot of people who willingly have drunk sex and the law should not define that as rape. Yet there is a point of being so drunk that any consent given should be suspect. But that line can be very difficult to detect, even in cases when people know each other pretty well.
In any event, we should probably drop this particular line of discussion. It won't be resolved here.