Item — HN Reader

> So the victim has no responsibility if blood alcohol level is too high for good judgment, but the perpetrator is responsible no matter their blood alcohol level and judgment?

Exactly. That's why they're called 'victim' and 'perpetrator'.

If the victim got triple blackout drunk, the only person they'd hurt is themselves. But the rapist, in addition to physical damage, inflicts deep, lasting psychological damage upon their victims. It's not just "regret".

1 comments

Ok, let's say it's a man and a women, she's the "perpetrator" and he gives consent. She's his boss and they're on a business trip and drank too much at the bar. In the morning he feels taken advantage of and deeply regrets it because he's married. Do you still stand by that?

> she's the "perpetrator" and he gives consent

If "he gives consent", then she isn't a perpetrator. By definition.

If one of the parties gets drunk, they can't give consent. Again, by definition.

> If "he gives consent", then she isn't a perpetrator. By definition.

> If one of the parties gets drunk, they can't give consent. Again, by definition.

Say she comes on to him, and he responds enthusiastically. But he's too drunk to give consent by your definition. Then she's just committed a rape? From her POV, also drunk, she made a move, he reciprocated, all in all it was a pleasant evening.

She clearly didn't mean to commit a crime in this case, and both their judgment was impaired. Whose fault is it?

I don't think it's fair to say it's all her fault - and I don't think a court of law could find fault here, fairly, with no witnesses and no evidence.

> If one of the parties gets drunk, they can't give consent. Again, by definition.

So drunk people should never have sex? What if they're in a stable relationship?